Bill C-308 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system)

This enactment makes a number of amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. Specifically, it
(a) reduces the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment;
(b) increases the benefit period;
(c) increases the rate of weekly benefits to 60%;
(d) eliminates the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force;
(e) eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length;
(f) increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $42,500 and introduces an indexing formula; and
(g) adds a new Part VIII.01 to the Act relating to self-employed persons.

Employment Insurance Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my statement of March 22, 2021, regarding Private Members' Business, I expressed my concern about Bill C-265, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), sponsored by the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

At the time, I encouraged the hon. members who wished to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for this bill to do so, which the members for Kingston and the Islands and Elmwood—Transcona did during points of order on April 12 and 14, respectively. I thank them for the precedents and the information they shared during their interventions. I am now ready to rule on the matter.

During his intervention, the member for Kingston and the Islands argued that Bill C-265 would extend sickness benefits and would thus seek to authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund not authorized in statute. He added that there is no existing authorization to cover this new and distinct charge and that a royal recommendation is therefore necessary.

Here is what it says at page 838 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and I quote:

Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

Furthermore, a royal recommendation may only be obtained by a minister, the granting of such recommendation being a prerogative of the Crown.

In order to determine if Bill C-265 requires a royal recommendation, the Chair can rely on a number of similar precedents, including the ruling made by my predecessor on Bill C-269, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act regarding improvement of the employment insurance system, and Bill C-308, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act regarding improvement of the employment insurance system, both of which would have, among other things, extended the length of the benefit period.

A reading of Bill C-265 reveals that it would amend paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 152.14(1)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum benefit period in the case of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

Clearly, the bill’s goal is to permanently lengthen the period for employment insurance benefits, which would increase the expenditures made under the act’s system. It is, therefore, my opinion that Bill C-265 would increase an existing appropriation and must be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can proceed to a final vote in the House on third reading.

When this item is next before the House, the debate will only be on the motion for second reading of the bill, and the question will be put to the House at the end of this debate.

I would like to thank the hon. members for their attention.

Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would delay the time for questions so that I can finish my speech. My colleague from Hochelaga agrees with me.

I am pleased to speak to this important bill. It is important because it shows the true face of this government and it lets us see the government for what it is.

This bill, which was introduced on June 1, 2010, would eliminate old age security benefits for prisoners. From the outset, the Bloc was clear that it would support this new measure in principle, contrary to what our Conservative colleagues are trying to insinuate. We support this bill in principle.

We also said from the outset that we wanted the bill to go to committee, and it was studied by the committee I have the honour to sit on, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We made a unanimous recommendation in this House that would correct this flaw that allows prisoners, who are fed and housed at public expense, to receive old age security benefits, which are not earned through employment or otherwise.

The government made this an urgent issue, even though we did not see it as urgent. We saw the need but not the urgency, because no one was threatened or hurt by this situation. It was a matter of recovering the money these people had received unfairly. We discovered along the way that the Conservatives were just paying lip service to the idea of urgency, because they tried and are still trying to drag out the debate so that they can make purely demagogic arguments implying that the opposition parties disagree with the principle of this bill. Clearly, we are talking about something that went unnoticed for years and only came to light because of Mr. Wilson's situation.

A more urgent issue would be the situation of seniors who are not incarcerated, but who live in the community and have to make do with an income that is not enough to let them live in dignity.

I will talk about two specific measures. The first is the guaranteed income supplement, including income security. One seniors advocacy group, FADOQ, has brought this issue forward on a number of occasions, and started a petition that I tabled in this House a week or two ago. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have also filed petitions from each of their ridings.

We find ourselves in this House with petitions presented by Bloc colleagues. These petitions, started and sponsored by seniors groups, are calling urgently for an increase in seniors' income, which consists of basic income security, known as the old age pension, and the guaranteed income supplement for those who receive old age security but still do not have enough income to pay for housing, food, clothing and medication.

In Quebec alone, 78,000 seniors find themselves in this situation; in Canada, the number is threefold.

Therefore, this is of concern to us. A well-known Quebecker said that a society is judged on how it treats its children and its seniors. Given that we can identify 78,000 Quebeckers and more than 200,000 Canadians living not just below the poverty line, but below the level of income considered necessary to live with dignity, something is not working properly in our society.

This is an indication that the laws are poorly designed or not being enforced.

In the case of the guaranteed income supplement, the legislation is being misapplied, perhaps even deliberately misapplied. Eight years ago in 2002, it was discovered that 83,000 eligible people in Quebec alone were not receiving the guaranteed income supplement. And yet, they were entitled to it.

Year after year, we have asked the government why these people are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement even though the government receives their income tax returns and has knowledge of their income. Almost none of these people are aware of their entitlement. They are isolated in the community and lack the necessary knowledge and education. And yet, the government knows who these people are.

Bloc Québécois members including Marcel Gagnon, the former member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, campaigned to make people aware of their GIS eligibility. Tens of thousands of people discovered that they were entitled to the GIS as a result of this campaign. And yet, these people were living in poverty—which I will not describe as abject, because they are proud people—but in poverty that was barely tolerable. The upshot was that over 40,000 people found out about their entitlement and filed applications.

At this very moment, there are still 42,000 people in Quebec and three times that many in the rest of Canada who have fallen through the cracks. There is the very familiar case of the woman from Toronto who had been living in absolute poverty and found out only two years ago that she had qualified for the guaranteed income supplement for the past 10 years or more. News of our campaign spread to Toronto, where she found out about her entitlement and was also discovered. Her story made headlines. That is just one case. There have been tens of thousands of similar cases.

There is a lot of urgency around this first measure. Not only does this situation require urgent attention so that these people get the guaranteed income supplement, but also, benefits must immediately be paid retroactively since over $3 billion has been misappropriated. That money belongs to seniors. This wrong must be righted immediately.

To correct this injustice, in April, my colleague, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, introduced Bill C-516, which includes the following measures. We in the Bloc Québécois truly hope that all members of the House will support this bill and, when the time comes, vote for it. The bill would increase the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. It proposes a six-month extension to the pension and surviving spouse or common-law partner benefit. This six-month extension would ensure that a survivor is able to bridge the gap after the death of his or her spouse. Also included is automatic enrolment for those over the age of 65 who are eligible for the GIS—which I mentioned earlier, and it is ridiculous that this has not yet been done—retroactive guaranteed income supplement payments to seniors, and a surviving spouse benefit increase to match GIS levels.

These are the measures that must be taken immediately with respect to my first example.

My second example has to do with the people who have not reached the age of eligibility for the income security pension, that is, the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement, and who lose their jobs while still under the age of 65. Beginning in 1989, we had a program for older worker adjustment, the POWA, for workers aged 55 and up who lost their jobs and were not able to find new employment, particularly in one-industry regions. These people were left with nothing once their employment insurance benefits and benefit period ran out, and they ended up on welfare.

From 1989 to 1997, we had a program called POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which enabled these people, for whom there were no jobs available, to receive income from employment insurance to allow them to live decently.

In 1997, the Liberal government cut that program completely, and it has not existed since then, which means that factories have been shut down in many regions in Quebec and elsewhere. Other members can speak for what has gone on in other provinces.

There is Whirlpool, for example, which shut down in Montmagny in 2004. Nearly 30% of the 245 employees were over 55. The primary employer in the region closed its doors and there were no jobs for the employees who were over 55. The younger ones could always find work elsewhere, but it was a difficult time. What happened to these people? They ended up on welfare. These people had worked and paid into employment insurance their entire lives, and the government did not even support them with a measure that was paid for out of their own pockets.

What happened during that time? The employment insurance fund was generating surpluses every year. In 1997, the same year the government cut the POWA, a surplus of over $7 billion had accumulated in that fund. Yet over 50% of the employees who had paid into the EI fund were not eligible to receive EI benefits. As a matter of fact, surpluses accumulated year after year, thereby allowing both parties that formed successive governments to misappropriate over $57 billion from the EI fund over a period of 13 or 14 years. During that time, older workers were losing their jobs and not receiving any benefits, even though they had paid into the EI fund their entire lives.

As we know, some measures were taken during what has been called the economic crisis. These include the stimulus plans for municipal infrastructure, special measures for the automotive industry, and so on. Then again, even if there is no national economic crisis, people who lose their jobs go through their own economic crisis and so do their families.

On behalf of my party, I introduced Bill C-308 to correct the situation, but the Liberals sided with the Conservatives to defeat that bill.

To be fair, some Liberal members voted in favour of the bill, but they arranged, as they so often do, to have enough members absent—including the Liberal Party leader, first and foremost—to ensure it did not pass. We had just won an opposition vote on a Liberal motion, and the Liberal Party leader practically ran down the aisle to leave so he would not have to vote. It was a little pathetic.

So, yes, there are victims who need to be taken care of, victims of crime, of course, and victims of the economic situation. I illustrated this with two very specific cases.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know when I will be able to finish my speech.

Employment Insurance

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a person wants to have a dog put down they say the dog was violent. When a government does not want to vote for a bill, it exaggerates the economic impact. That is what the government did with the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-308, which it estimated would cost $7 billion.

Last year, the Liberals and the Conservatives set up a puppet committee to restore the 360-hour threshold for employment insurance eligibility. At the first opportunity to vote in favour of this measure included in Bill C-308, they turned their backs on the workers.

Today, we are debating Bill C-280, which would fill in some of the gaps that Bill C-308 sought to remedy. That is why the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the bill. We hope the Conservatives and the Liberals will follow suit and that they will not use cost as an excuse again, because the costs, which are estimated at $2 billion—

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff.

You used the word “snuck”. The government bill was there for all to see. It seems to me that a year and a half after the fact is too late. A great deal of damage has been done.

Indeed I do support pay equity. I have since I was an MLA in Ontario. I actually brought forward a pay equity bill based on the 2004 task force. If I ever have a chance to do that again, I hope you will support it.

About a month ago, you said that Bill C-308, a private member's bill, was dead on arrival; it wasn't going anywhere because it needed royal recommendation. Now, since part of Bill C-471 requires a royal recommendation, and my guess is that it's most definitely not going to be granted, I wondered, when you drafted your bill, did you consider setting aside that part--which has, in your own words, no hope--in favour of pursuing the consequential amendment that revokes the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act? In that revocation, it would take us back to the point we were at before the Conservative bill. Women then would have the ability to appeal to the Human Rights Commission, with fines levied against employers and unions. They're quite significant fines in the case of unions who want to advocate for their members. Also, it would remove pay equity from the bargaining table.

Had you thought about pursuing that as a way of actually achieving something substantive that we know would go ahead--or that had hope of going ahead, rather?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during his recent—and first ever—visit to my riding, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada said that Abitibi needed a voice, not a ghost. And he is right. That is why we cannot understand why he and about 20 of his party colleagues dematerialized in Parliament last Wednesday during the vote on Bill C-308.

The goal of that bill was to improve the lives of the unemployed. So what is the Liberal leader's real plan? Does he hope his party returns to power so it can start diverting money from the employment insurance fund, as it did in the past?

Even with Halloween just around the corner, Abitibi does not need any ghosts, just as unemployed workers do not need any vampires draining their EI fund. In Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, as in the rest of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois has always defended the interests of the unemployed, and we will continue to do so.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taxes for the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition, they only go higher and higher. Under the coalition, businesses would be the enemy and taxpayer wallets the target. They reach for more of Canadians' hard-earned money to fund their fiscally irresponsible schemes, such as a 45-day work year.

Our Conservative government will not let that happen. We were the only party to vote unanimously against the coalition-backed Bill C-308.

Would the finance minister inform the House of a major step announced today?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last night, Liberal MPs, with their coalition partners, voted to endorse the fiscally irresponsible BillC-308 and its 45-day work year plan. If implemented, it would cost Canadians $7 billion and increase EI premiums permanently by 35%.

Our Conservative government was the only party to unanimously oppose this irresponsible coalition plan. These irresponsible coalition schemes will harm jobs and job creators.

Could the Minister of Finance please inform the House what--

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Conservative government voted against Bill C-308, which includes costly and irresponsible proposals, such as a 45-day work year. The Liberal leader yesterday called the bill fiscally irresponsible, yet he did not vote against it. In fact, the Liberal EI spokesperson voted in favour of it.

Could the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development please inform the House of the devastating impact the coalition's irresponsible EI plans would have on Canadian workers and businesses?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during yesterday's vote on the bill to increase accessibility to employment insurance and its benefits, the Conservatives and Liberals turned their backs on the unemployed.

The Liberals' decision was all the more shocking because, until yesterday, they had supported our initiative. The Liberals, with their about-face, demonstrated their indifference and lack of concern for workers who are losing their jobs while the economy is slowly recovering from the recession.

And to add insult to injury, the leader of the Liberal Party went so far as to say that Bill C-308 was going nowhere. Yet, not that long ago, he was openly supporting it.

Given that unions and groups of unemployed workers agree with our initiative, how can the leader of the Liberal Party justify his about-face and flagrant lack of consistency?

It is undoubtedly clear that the Bloc Québécois is still the only party in Quebec that is listening to workers.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continues to repeat that that his main priority with regard to employment insurance reform is instituting a 45-day work year. He has even threatened to trigger an election over this issue.

Yesterday, when the 45-day work year included in Bill C-308 was put to a vote, his employment critic, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, voted for it, as did other Liberal members.

If the bill were implemented, it would cost Canadians at least $7 billion and increase premiums by at least 35% permanently. Just like all the other Liberal tax hikes, it would kill employment and bring our fragile economic recovery to a halt.

Our Conservative government is doing everything it can to get Canadians back to work and to leave more money in their wallets. The Liberal leader's main concern is to spend irresponsibly, which —

Employment Insurance Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) under private members' business.

The House resumed from September 22 consideration of Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Employment Insurance

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is notable that the Liberal leader's critic is contradicting his own leader now in terms of voting on this issue.

Bill C-308 would cost Canadians $7 billion each and every year and would result in a permanent increase in the EI premiums of a whopping 35%.

This is irresponsible. Canadians cannot afford it. We will not support it.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I do not know whether it is as distracting to you, Mr. Speaker, but I am bothered by people talking in the House.

I will use the example of employment insurance. Since I arrived in the House six years ago, the name of the employment insurance fund has changed four times. When the name is changed so many times, it is because, like anyone who wants to misuse and take funds that do not belong to them, the government is trying to use subterfuge to justify taking this money. Over the last 14 years, a surplus of more than $57 billion has accumulated and been misappropriated from the employment insurance fund. Only employees and employers contribute to this fund, and the surplus that accumulated was misappropriated through cuts to employment insurance benefits. The precise amount taken was $57,170,000,356.

When the Conservative budget was passed in 2008, just two years ago, the name of the employment insurance fund was changed and the Employment Insurance Financing Board was created. That was the third time the name has been changed in order to give this power to the administrators and to be able to continue quietly dipping into the EI fund, to create a separate fund, we were told. A separate fund was not created and it continued accumulating surpluses to be used for other purposes. In this year's budget—and as Bill C-9 is now proposing—this separate fund will henceforth be called the employment insurance account and it will be a separate management account, we are told.

This is when we, as parliamentarians, must intervene. We cannot condone such a thing because, for one thing, that money is not the government's to use for anything other than EI benefits.

For another thing, this constitutes an economic crime that affects the people who need this money, which belongs to them, that is, workers and their employers.

This time, we would have expected the government to present measures to restore the employment insurance system. Not only did it fail to do that, but it is creating the new EI fund. It is thus making sure that it will continue accumulating surpluses so that between 2012 and 2015, another $19 billion will be plundered and used for other purposes.

How could this money be used? Obviously, it could be used to make sure that people who lose their jobs can receive benefits. Some 56% of people who lose their jobs cannot receive employment insurance benefits. The government has made the eligibility requirements so strict that most unemployed workers do not qualify.

We have introduced Bill C-308, standing in my name, which if passed would mean that people applying for employment insurance are presumed to be acting in good faith. Right now the government requires those applying for EI to prove their good faith, which is absolutely reprehensible. When a person loses their job it is an undeniable fact. We also know whether the person has accumulated enough hours. Nevertheless, all sorts of measures are used to prevent people from getting employment insurance.

We want the qualifying period to be 360 hours for everyone and the rate of weekly benefits to be increased to 60% from the current 55%, for an improvement of 5%. It is not a lot, but for people who are receiving very little, it is something.

The measure raising the number of weeks of benefits to 50 should be made permanent. Just a little over a year ago, the government set the number of weeks of benefits at 50 weeks instead of 45, but that measure comes to an end in the fall. It will have to become permanent.

The most appropriate measure would be to have a comprehensive plan to return the money removed. The $57 billion that was taken from the employment insurance fund should be put back. With that money and almost no increase in contributions we could improve employment insurance benefits for workers who have the misfortune of losing their job.

Not only is the government not planning to return the money it removed, but it is planning to continue misappropriating money from the fund. I am calling on my colleagues, whom I believe to be sincere when they make the same arguments we do, the opposition colleagues in particular, to be in the House, when the time comes to vote on Bill C-9, and put their money where their mouth is by voting against the bill.

Of course, there is one party that says we need not go to an election over this. But when should we go to an election? When measures do not help people then we should go to an election in order to have a debate over what is good for the people. They should quit hiding their heads in the sand.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second and third reports of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute) and Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

The committee has studied both bills and has decided to report Bill C-395 back to the House with an amendment, and Bill C-308 without amendment.

I wish to thank all the committee members for their hard work and collaboration in getting these bills through.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I understand that Mr. Komarnicki is talking about Bill C-308, which will cost money, but my question about the royal recommendation had to do with Bill C-395. Since he mentioned Bill C-308, I will use this opportunity to remind Mr. Komarnicki that he was among those members who voted with us in 2005, in favour of the 28 recommendations, and that the provisions in Bill C-308 reflect some of the 28 recommendations that he supported.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Now, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, we will deal with Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

(On clause 1)

Shall clause 1 be carried?

Yes, Mr. Savage.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you for being here this afternoon, Ms. Byers and Mr. Shetagne, to testify again about the need for employment insurance reform. Bill C-308 involves only a few aspects of that reform.

Ms. Byers, you gave a very good summary of the situation and put things in context. It was a good idea for you to remind us of the entire debate that took place in 2004, out of which 28 recommendations were made. At that time, some of us on the committee took part in that work. In addition to myself, there were Mr. Godin and the Liberal MP, Mr. D'Amours. Although the Liberals were in power at that time, some Liberal Party members supported that reform and were involved in writing the recommendations. There were also people from the Conservative Party, which was the official opposition at the time.

It is therefore largely a question of the need for employment insurance reform. The argument made is that the situation of unemployed people has improved since 2004. For one thing, there are fewer of them, it seems. For another, people who lose their jobs are treated better because of the measures in place.

I was glad to hear you speak specifically about the situation of women. I would like to know your opinion on that subject. Has the situation of unemployed men and women improved enough to think about giving up on reforming employment insurance?

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to call to order meeting 13 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Pursuant to the order from Wednesday, March 3, we will be considering Bill C-308.

We want to welcome two witnesses this afternoon from the Canadian Labour Congress: Barbara Byers, executive vice-president, and Sylvain Schetagne, senior economist, social and economic policy department.

Welcome. We're glad to have you here. You'll have 10 minutes to present and then we'll have questions from the committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I will just let the committee know that next Wednesday we probably will have time and room in our schedule for them, because it's looking like we'll be able to deal with Bill C-395 and Bill C-308 in their entirety over the next couple of meetings. I'll just put that out there for the committee to consider.

Is it the will of the committee that we bring in these witnesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We have Bill C-395 and we're finishing up Bill C-308. So we do have a few witnesses. We've had some logistical problems, but we're fitting them in.

What I'd like to do is at least start to plan the adoption study. It is some time away, but we do find sometimes it's a challenge getting witnesses lined up, so I'd rather be a little ahead of the game and have some planning on it. So when I say having Mr. Watson as early as possible, we're probably looking at late April or early May, but I just want to suggest that we bring him in early in the process. That way we can include his testimony in some of our suggestions.

Mr. Martin.

[François Lamoureux, Assistant to the Executive Committee, Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)]

Good afternoon to everyone. First, I would like to thank committee members for inviting us and hearing our views on Bill C-308, which was sponsored by the member of Parliament Yves Lessard.

I would like to point out that the CSN represents 300,000 workers in every economic sector in Quebec. I say “every economic sector in Quebec” for the following reason. The CSN welcomes Bill C-308 because we believe that this bill contains elements, important tools to help fight poverty and inequity between unemployed workers in every part of Canada.

The CSN supports this bill because, in our view, it is based on an understanding of the real problems which unemployed workers in Quebec and in every economic sector are experiencing. All of the workers from the various economic sectors represented by the CSN have been harshly affected. This mainly applies to the manufacturing sector which is going through a major crisis. But there's also a major crisis in the pulp and paper industry, there is a major crisis in the shipbuilding industry, and there is a major crisis in the steelworking industry.

Today, workers who have lost their jobs in these sectors are experiencing situations which have led to family crises. The CSN agrees with all of the proposals contained in Bill C-308, but we support in particular the proposal that sets the eligibility threshold at 360 hours.

We wish to express our position as follows. Why do we need an eligibility threshold? For us, it is a matter of treating all unemployed workers, regardless of where they are in Canada, fairly. In our opinion, an unemployed worker is an unemployed worker, and this person needs a temporary income in order to look for work. Premiums are not based on the regional unemployment rate. Premiums are the same, whether one is a part-time worker, a seasonal worker, whether one works on call or full time, whether one is young, a man or a woman. Workers are not responsible for being laid off. A worker can be laid off in a region with a very low unemployment rate, either because that person was working for a company which went bankrupt, which decided to decrease its activities or terminate its operations, or a company that is operating in a shrinking economic sector.

Why do employment benefits depend on the unemployment rate of the region we live in? Do we receive less health care in a region where there are fewer sick people? No. Does it make sense for people who are laid off by a company, but who live in different administrative regions for the purposes of employment insurance, not to be eligible for the same benefits?

In our view, workers who lose their jobs in a low unemployment area suffer just as much as those who lose their jobs in a region with a high one. Losing a job is a personal tragedy which leads to a loss of income and an increase in stress. Everyone needs a temporary income to find a new job, regardless of what the regional unemployment rate is.

Canada seems to be the only industrialized country, with the exception of certain U.S. states, to apply variable eligibility standards. Why should we have a threshold of 360 hours? We think it will make the system fairer. Despite what some unemployment statistics might indicate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an independent government official, estimated that if the threshold was brought down to 360 hours, 165,000 additional unemployed workers would be eligible for regular benefits, excluding new recipients.

In the same document, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that the department estimated that over 330,000 additional unemployed workers would be eligible for benefits if the 360-hour threshold applied to everyone, that is, to all categories of beneficiaries, including those eligible for regular and special benefits.

A little earlier, questions were raised about how this would affect women who work part-time. When the eligibility criteria were changed from weeks worked to hours worked, the purpose was to help more workers qualify for benefits, at least in theory, including people working fewer than 15 hours per week. So, theoretically, these changes were supposed to benefit women, because 40% of women work in irregular employment, such as part-time or casual work. In this regard, the statistics are interesting. The eligibility criteria were established in such a way that the original objectives were not met and, in fact, they greatly penalized workers, especially women, who engage in irregular types of work.

From 1971 to 1978, a woman working 15 hours a week on a part-time basis could qualify for benefits with 120 hours, or 8 weeks. However, over time, this same worker would need between 150 and 210 hours from 1978 to 1989, 210 hours in 1990, from 150 to 300 hours from 1991 to 1994, from 180 to 300 hours from 1994 to 1997, and from 420 to 700 hours since 1997. That's more than double.

In our opinion, the 360-hour threshold is essential, because, pending a major overhaul of the system, it is the only way to restore a minimum degree of fairness for workers, whose employment regimes vary. We believe the current system discriminates against women, and that the new rules had a huge impact on women. Indeed, in total, the average number of hours worked by women was set at 33.8 hours per week, but women work, on average, 29.8 hours per week. Therefore, women need to work more hours to qualify for benefits, and they are entitled to fewer weeks of benefits. Eighteen per cent of jobs are part-time, which explains why, in 2007, barely one-third of workers, and especially women working part-time, were eligible for employment insurance benefits.

In our opinion, this bill is a step in the right direction as far as the fight against poverty is concerned, and it also creates more fairness in the way all workers are treated.

[Pierre Céré]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Mr. Lessard, sponsor of the bill, I would like to thank you on behalf of our organization, the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses for this invitation to share our views on Bill C-308.

Indeed, there are two representatives from the Conseil national des chômeurs. Danie Harvey is a member of the CNC's executive and is involved with the Mouvement Action Chômage, or MAC, which is based in Charlevoix. Sitting with the public is Yvan Boulay, who is with the MAC in Saint-Hyacinthe, in the Montérégie, France Turcotte of the Comité chômage du Haut-Richelieu, and Ian Forand of the Comité chômage de Montréal, or CCM. This is not our first time before the committee to discuss employment insurance. To be blunt, we are absolutely in favour of this bill.

However, there is one little detail. It would be better to amend section 14 to abolish the notion of “rate calculation period”, and to define, as pilot project number 11 did, the rate of benefits on the basis of the 12 highest weeks of earnings in the reference period. As I said, Madam Chair, this is merely a detail.

More importantly, however, and what leads us to support this bill, is the implementation of a single eligibility criterion, which will be established at 360 hours. Improving the rate of benefits and extending the benefit period are necessary improvements to the employment insurance program.

However, Madam Chair, I do not have a crystal ball, even though I would sometimes like to have one. I know, and everyone knows, that this bill will die on the order paper. It will die, as other opposition bills which had the same purpose, namely to improve the employment insurance program, have also died.

This bill will not pass third reading because the government will not authorize royal assent. This is what awaits this bill after its review by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Yet on the issue of EI eligibility, a vast social consensus has been established.

I would like to remind you, Madam Chair, of what happened last year. This did not happen 30 years ago. It was in August 2009. Provincial premiers met in Regina to discuss the employment insurance program. Ten provincial premiers—not six or seven, but ten—agreed to call upon the federal government to solve the issue of EI eligibility. A large number of social movements, unions, the Church, various economists, political observers and institutions of all sorts joined their voices to those of the premiers.

At least one year ago, in the spring of 2009, we met with all of the municipal councils in Quebec, including large-, medium- and small-sized towns and localities. We all met with them in every region. We asked them to tell us what their position was on the employment insurance program. A majority of these councils debated the issue, adopted motions and signed statements calling upon the federal government to settle the issue of eligibility, rate of benefits and the benefit period.

I have here the original signatures and the original documents related to those motions. I also have a letter signed by the Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity of Quebec who supports these demands. If I have a moment during the question and answer round, I can tell you what it says.

This majority of municipal councils also represents a majority of the population. In any case, I am talking about Quebec. Here, in the House of Commons, there is also a parliamentary majority. This majority is confronted with the stubborn refusal of the minority government. For us, this represents the thwarting of democracy.

This same thwarting of democracy by the minority government is reflected in its refusal to abide by a Supreme Court decision that it repatriate Omar Khadr, who was a child soldier, from Guantanamo.

It's the same kind of thwarting of democracy which we are witnessing with this minority government, which is trying to slowly dismantle the firearms registry, despite the fact that in our society, at least in Quebec, there is a consensus around the matter.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

So much is being said about what is being done now. But these measures deal more with extending the duration of employment insurance benefits. Well, first, one would have to be eligible for these benefits to have access to these measures. You believe that these measures are bypassing an entire segment of the population, in other words women, students, workers who earn low wages, may lose their jobs and become unemployed again, part-time workers and seasonal workers. You believe Bill C-308 will have a major impact on all of these workers who paid employment insurance premiums when they were working.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Chair, we should start by saying that the government has frozen the premium rate until the fall. It will then be reassessed, but the chief actuary cannot have it vary by more than 15¢. This amount will determine, by 2012, the size of the deficit versus the EI fund's obligations. Well, at that rate, there will be a surplus in the fund again by 2012.

How will that happen? If the increase remains constant at 15¢ per year, the fund will have a balanced budget, and as of 2012, there will be a surplus because there will no longer be temporary measures in place. The current actuarial deficit calculations to determine the account fiscal balance point, which now stands at $2.43, will no longer exist. It will not be the same in 2012, so, based on the calculations in the most recent budget, the fund will be generating $19 billion in surplus between 2011 and 2015.

I will now get to our second question, in other words how much we anticipate this bill to cost. We believe it will cost a maximum of $3 billion per year. This amount is based on the government's own figures. We can include this information along with the notes we will be sending you.

In other words at this rate, if we were to implement Bill C-308 over the next five years, there would be $3 billion more per year, the fund would be nearing balance by 2012 and there would be a $4 billion surplus in 2015. This is not a result of casual calculations, it is based on the current budget. These $19 billion are not something the government is denying, because it will use them for other purposes, as was done in the past.

I do not know if this answers all of your questions.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I thought I was ready, Madam Chair, but I realized that I did not have the right file with me. That is what happens when you have to come here from the House of Commons in so little time.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for your welcome. Appearing as a witness before you is something quite new to me, as I was a witness on only one brief occasion in the past. I have been a member of this committee for the past six years and have considered all aspects and components of human resources and social development programs, and especially the issue of employment insurance.

This year, we have again tabled a bill intended to reform the employment insurance system. I believe this is the third bill, since we had previously introduced Bills C-280 and C-269. The latter is perhaps fresher in people's minds, because three opposition parties had agreed on a platform to move the planned reform as far forward as possible.

Madam Chair, you might wonder why we are so persistent in wanting to affect such far-reaching changes to the employment insurance system. The reason why is because the system is so terribly unfair to part of our society, i.e., the people who lose their jobs.

Before addressing the substance of the bill, I think that it is appropriate to remind ourselves of our shared motivation. I see colleagues here who, with myself and others, put forward changes to the employment insurance system in the past. That is extremely hard to achieve. Which brings us to the question: Why is it so hard to improve the lives of our country's most underprivileged people and yet so easy to feed or support the rich? We see that with the banks, the oil companies and the military industry. Madam Chair, $1.2 billion in funding was cut from social programs in September 2007, whereas close to $9 billion had been announced for the military sector in the summer, without any debate in the House of Commons. Why are things so easy for the rich and the military? We do not object to supporting the forces themselves, because they play a crucial role in our society, but the amounts that are committed to wage war, Madam Chair, are a matter of social choice—a choice that we do not share and call into question once again today.

Madam Chair, it is sometimes necessary to speak bluntly. I think that employment insurance represents a serious economic crime against workers, and particularly the unemployed, their families, regions and affected provinces. Why do I say that? I say that because money is being diverted from its stated purpose, i.e., to support the needs of people who have lost their income, people who have contributed to the fund along with their employers.That money is taken and used for other purposes. Over the past 14 years, $57 billion have been diverted.

Madam Chair, I am talking about an economic crime and asking my fellow parliamentarians whether we have not become white-collar criminals.

It is the same as when the people we entrust our money to to invest for our retirement use the funds for their personal benefit.

You might say that the difference here is that the government is doing so for collective purposes. That is the only difference because the harm is the same: it is attacking the less fortunate even though they had taken the precaution of contributing to an insurance fund in order to collect benefits in the event of job loss.

I wanted to begin by saying that because I believe that is something we need to think about each time we deal with this issue.

In 2004-2005, we produced the report I have here and completed it in February. Bill C-308 contains the thrust of the recommendations that we made.

Some of our recommendations are also contained in the committee's employability report that was presented in the House no later than April 2008. That report called on the government to take action in order to improve and broaden access to employment insurance.

I have these documents here. Is our work all done in vain? That would be most unfortunate because my colleagues and I believe in the work we do. We believe in restoring the important status of the EI system. How should we go about doing that? We must begin by putting forward a number of measures that I will set out. I will end with that in order to give my colleagues time to ask questions.

Needless to say, the bill includes a measure to improve accessibility through a reduction to a minimum of 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment. We will see later how to calibrate access.

We now see that the government has tried to make some improvements to the system with partial measures, but they are temporary measures and have nothing to do with what is contained in Bill C-308.

We need to increase the benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks. The government has done so temporarily. In our view, that should be a permanent measure. By doing so temporarily, the government is confirming that there is a real need.

The rate of weekly benefits needs to be increased from 55% to 60% of insurable earnings. A 5% increase is not much, and I will show later that such an increase will not encourage people to remain unemployed.

We have to eliminate the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force. That is a measure that leads to some discrimination, which is also something I would like to touch on later.

We have to eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not form an employer-employee relationship. That concerns family situations where it is presumed that a person does not deal with a relative at arm's length. As a result, when that person claims employment insurance benefits, he or she is considered to be committing fraud. I would also like to come back to that issue.

I would like to welcome our colleague Diane Finley who has just joined us. Earlier, I spoke about those who contributed to reforming the system. Mr. Godin is one of them.

We also need to increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $42,500. We had debated that amount in 2005. We had agreed on setting that amount at $41,000, although we had considered a gradual increase. The government has taken the initiative of setting the amount at $43,200. We find that that is a suitable amount and would be willing to make a consequential amendment to Bill C-308.

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

As per the orders of the day, today we'll begin with Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system). We'll have the sponsor of the bill, Monsieur Lessard, testifying for the first hour.

I suggest--and I already spoke with Monsieur Lessard about this--that because we have votes today, we'll have to complete the entire committee meeting today by 5:15 p.m. We do have a little bit of committee business to look at, which means we have to complete the witness portion by 5:00. Therefore, Monsieur Lessard has agreed that he will take 45 minutes for his introduction and the questions from us. That will give his witnesses a little more time, and we can also do the committee business. He's agreed, so we'll move forward with that.

Monsieur Lessard, welcome today as witness as opposed to someone asking the questions. We look forward to hearing from you. You will have 10 minutes to present, and then we will begin our first round of questions.

Monsieur Lessard, I turn the mike over to you.

Opposition Motion—Throne Speech and Budget

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is sometimes difficult to find the right word to describe a behaviour. The dictionary provides guidance in that regard. When we use a word, it is recognized by the dictionary.

I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion. My colleagues from Joliette and Hochelaga were able to set the debate in context. I would point out, broadly, that this motion stresses how little room the budget gives in relation to a federalist approach to things, how little room it allows for Quebec. It does the same thing in relation to the other regions of Canada, more specifically where the social safety net is concerned.

These are the issues addressed in the motion. Quebec is owed $2.2 billion for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST. As well, no support is being offered for the forestry industry in Quebec equivalent to what is being done in Ontario for the auto industry. We all agree with the support provided for auto industry workers, but where the rub lies is that there is discrimination in the choices made, and that should not be the case.

The aerospace industry in Quebec is also completely ignored in the economic choices made by Canada. I will not talk about environmental issues, because other colleagues have already done that. I am going to focus on the needs of the disadvantaged, who have been completely ignored by the Conservative government and the government that preceded it.

My colleague from Joliette talked about contempt and indifference. In fact, what we are seeing is contempt and indifference toward the most disadvantaged people in our society.

I will give an example. After hearing the Speech from the Throne, we also see that the budget contains nothing for veterans, even though it had been announced that they would receive a monthly pension instead of a lump sum. The budget also contains no provision for the community sector and for seniors.

But the Speech from the Throne announces the creation of days to celebrate having nothing: a holiday from the Prime Minister for veterans; a day to celebrate community organizations, which have suffered unprecedented cuts in the last three years; and a day for seniors, who have had $3.2 billion taken from them. The most disadvantaged, and the ones who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, are ignored.

The last two governments hoped to eliminate this debt by attrition. In the budget, the government will recover $228 million because these people die. While the government knows to whom it owes this money, it relies on the fact that these people do not know their rights and keeps the money that belongs to them.

I will talk about the economic crimes committed against seniors and the unemployed.

We have to tell it like it is. We talk about white collar criminals who help themselves to the money their clients have entrusted to them. The present situation is similar. The government helps itself to the money that belongs to seniors and the unemployed. In the last 14 years, the government has siphoned $57 billion from a fund put in place for workers who have lost their jobs. Some say that what is done is done, that the money was used for other things, and that we should forget about it. I say that we should not forget about it and trivialize such repressive measures foisted on the unemployed. What is worse, the Conservative government is preparing to siphon another $19 billion over the next five years. Only employers and workers pay into the employment insurance fund. What the government has done is absolutely revolting, yet every party that has been in power seems to have considered this practice perfectly normal.

I call here for two minutes' reflection. When you give your money to an individual to administer, through investment, insurance or business management and when you need it for your own purposes and the people who administer it tell you they have used it for other purposes, what do you do? You take them to court, because this is misappropriation. Well obviously seniors and the unemployed cannot take the government to court, but the action remains just as reprehensible and unacceptable. Why do we accept the unacceptable? Because the behaviour has become commonplace. It has become commonplace to steal from society's have-nots to fatten the haves, the banks, the oil barons, those who divert money to tax havens, for example. There are tax credits, there are even subsidies for these people paid out of the money collected from ordinary citizens, even from workers who pay money into the EI fund and cannot get it out afterwards. How is it we make it commonplace to steal from the poor to give to the rich? I am choosing my words carefully, because that is just what is going on here.

Of course, some people would remind me that the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, which said that, once it is in the consolidated fund, it becomes a sort of tax. Here again there is a lot of money. We have reached a crossroad where the situation has to be remedied. Steps must be taken. The Bloc has proposed measures to make EI once again available to those entitled to it, including setting eligibility at 360 hours and increasing the benefits to 60% of income. There are measures as well to permanently increase benefit duration to 50 weeks and to remove the stupid measure under which individuals applying for EI benefits are immediately suspected of committing fraud. They must be assumed to be acting in good faith. These are the measures that must be passed here, under Bill C-308 and Bill C-241, among others.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Still in the order of priorities, Madam Chair, there are two bills that are very important for the members of the committee and for people who are losing their jobs. These are Bill C-308, which reforms employment insurance, and Bill C-241, which addresses the waiting period. We must keep in mind from the outset that these are on the list of priorities. In any event, we are certainly going to rearrange the list of priorities through the work we do as a committee.

Royal Recommendation and Ways and Means Motions

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before we begin private members' business today, I would like to make a brief statement regarding the issue of royal recommendation and ways and means motions with respect to private members' business

Just as individual items of private members' business continue their legislative progress from session to session, the Chair's rulings on those same items likewise survive prorogation.

Specifically there are nine bills on which the Chair either commented, ruled or has heard a point of order with regard to the issue of the royal recommendation. There was also one bill on which a point of order was raised regarding the requirement for a ways and means motion.

The purpose of this statement is to remind the House of those rulings and of the questions that remain to be dealt with.

Members will recall that, during the last session, some private members’ bills were found by the Chair to require a royal recommendation. At the time of prorogation, there were seven such bills on the order of precedence or in committee.

Let us review briefly the situation in each of these seven cases.

Three of these bills were awaiting report stage in the House at the time of prorogation, namely: Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), standing in the name of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore;

Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), standing in the name of the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi;

Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

On May 12, 2009, the chair had ruled that Bill C-201, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. In committee, all clauses of the bill were deleted. In its present eviscerated form, Bill C-201 need no longer be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

As for Bill C-241 and Bill C-280, the chair ruled on April 22, 2009 and on June 3, 2009 respectively, that these bills in their present forms required royal recommendation. The committee stage has not altered this finding.

The following four bills were at committee stage: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), standing in the name of the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska was before the Standing Committee on Finance; Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, was before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

finally, Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The Chair ruled that all these bills in their present forms needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The rulings were given on October 23, 2009 for Bill C-290, on October 29, 2009 for Bill C-308, on June 16, 2009 for Bill C-309 and, more recently, on November 16, 2009 for Bill C-395.

Furthermore, points of order were raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader at the end of the last session with respect to the need for a royal recommendation for two bills. These are: Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave) standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead and Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Both of these bills were at second reading.

Just as was done in the last session, the Chair invites other members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for those two bills or any of the other bills on the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity in order for the Chair to come back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible.

Finally, a point of order was raised during the last session regarding Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (revocation of registration), standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, arguing that it should have been proceeded by a ways and means motion. The Chair has taken the matter under consideration and a ruling will be delivered in the days to come.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

It being 1:35, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, they're still looking.

Mr. Bédard, I want to thank you very much, once again, for taking the time out of your schedule to be here today. You can step back from the table whenever you want.

I want to remind committee members that when we come back in the new year we have Bill C-308, Mr. Lessard's bill. We have Bill C-395. We have our report on poverty, which we're still working on. And we have a motion that came forward in terms of dealing with some studies. It's motion M-386 regarding adoption and things like that.

When we come back in the new year I'm going to suggest that we have a subcommittee meeting right away to determine the order of preference of business and try to map out a plan.

I wanted to throw that out to the committee since this is our last meeting before we break for Christmas.

I see a couple of hands.

Mr. Martin and then Ms. Minna.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on October 7, 2009 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute) standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to Bill C-395, the parliamentary secretary stated that in his view the bill infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown. Specifically, he pointed out that the bill seeks to change the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act by adding a new provision that would extend the qualifying period for an undefined period in case of a work stoppage caused by a labour dispute. He also argued that by altering the calculation of the qualifying period, the bill would result in increased government spending on employment insurance.

In support of his contention that the bill requires a royal recommendation, the parliamentary secretary made reference to a Speaker's ruling on Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits) on March 23, 2007 and a ruling by the Speaker of the Senate in Bill S-207, an Act to Amend the Employment Insurance Act (foreign postings) on January 29, 2009.

Both bills were similar to the present bill in that they sought to modify the employment insurance qualifying period, and both were found to require royal recommendation.

In his intervention, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé argued that a royal recommendation is not required since the funds in the employment insurance account are paid by workers and employers and do not constitute government funds.

The Chair has examined the bill carefully and, it is clear beyond all doubt that Bill C-395 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. The argument put forth by the hon. member for Berthier--Maskinongé regarding whether or not funds contributed to the employment insurance fund constitute public revenue is a recurring argument. It has been brought forward during similar discussions on Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) as well as Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) from the previous Parliament. In essence, all monies received by the government, regardless of source, are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and become public funds, that is, funds of the Crown. The Constitution Act of 1867 and Standing Order 79 apply to these funds. Thus, a bill proposing a new or increased expenditure of public funds, that is, an appropriation, requires a royal recommendation.

The employment insurance program operates under this framework. The funds in question are public funds and their management is subject to the financial initiative of the Crown.

By extending the qualifying period for employment insurance benefits by the amount of time a person was unemployed due to a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute, Bill C-395 is increasing the expenditures under the act. These expenditures would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1). Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was once again interrupted on Friday by question period. The questions were excellent. However, given the government's answers, I have to say that we might have been better off listening to speeches about bills.

However, question period did give me an opportunity to hear the Minister of Public Works and Government Services say that the Bloc Québécois is always against everything. He was not listening right before question period. I had just said that the Bloc Québécois would support Bill C-51. We are completely in favour of this measure, the act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

I would like to summarize what I said during the first three minutes of my speech. I said that Bill C-51 would implement the renovation tax credit. That was one of the proposals in the recovery program that the Bloc Québécois released when Parliament resumed. Every party in the House but the Conservative government recognized that we were in the middle of an economic crisis.

During the 2008 election campaign, the Conservative Party denied the possibility that such an economic crisis would hit us here, even though our American neighbours—with whom we conduct a great deal of trade, of course—were in the midst of a major crisis, which unfortunately, is still not completely over.

Everyone knew that the whole world was facing an economic crisis and that Canada, Quebec and all the provinces would inevitably be affected. No one was happy about that. However, we needed to take off our rose coloured glasses and prepare for the worst, and also bring in concrete, effective measures to deal with and mitigate the effects of the crisis.

That is why the Bloc Québécois presented such a plan, which was, I might add, commended by the Minister of Finance. The minister said the Bloc Québécois was the only party in the House to bring forward concrete measures, and he thanked us for doing so. However, thanking us is as far as he went, given that, when he presented his budget, there was not much left of the important measures the Bloc had developed and proposed.

Bill C-51 also introduces a first-time homebuyers' tax credit. That is a good measure that was also proposed by the Bloc Québécois in our most recent election platform, during the election campaign that ended on October 14, 2008.

Bill C-51 implements Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which were signed in 2008.

It also includes some other measures, such as the temporary home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers' tax credit and an increase in the tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit.

What I also liked about Bill C-51, since I am the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food, is that it will also extend the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture, and it will designate the eligible flood or drought regions between 2007 and 2009.

We are not talking about a measure that will make all our farmers rich overnight, but this adjustment will prove very beneficial when a catastrophe hits our farmers. In addition, this bill amends the customs tariff to relax the conditions relating to temporarily imported shipping containers.

These are the main measures contained in Bill C-51.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance just now and at first reading of the bill and also when the home renovation tax credit was announced, touting this as the eighth wonder of the world and that the Canadian and Quebec economies would get back on track with this home renovation tax credit.

However, they should not exaggerate. I realize that this government tends to use every opportunity for the marketing and branding of the Conservative Party, with its logo and all the rest.

This measure alone will not put an end to the economic crisis and solve all the problems that have arisen in recent months and years. They should not exaggerate and consider it the be-all and end-all.

There a number of things missing from the government's deficit control plan and we can discuss these in the next few minutes.

The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is incomplete and poorly targeted. However, given that the measures in Bill C-51 are good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, in keeping with its responsible approach, will support this bill.

With respect to the home renovation tax credit in particular, as I was saying, in the first phase of our recovery plan, we had proposed introducing a similar home renovation tax credit. We emphasized the conversion of oil furnaces to more energy efficient equipment. We had a very specific plan for decreasing our dependence on oil.

This measure, in addition to helping reduce our dependence on oil would also have rapidly injected money into the economy. The measure we are debating today, the government's Bill C-51, does not specifically target energy efficient retrofits but is still an effective means of quickly stimulating the economy.

The government could have gone farther, as I said, and introduced a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing our dependence on oil.

The first-time home buyers' tax credit is also interesting, because in our 2008 election platform, we had proposed a tax credit for first-time home buyers and called for such a program. The measure the government has introduced is not as generous as what we proposed, but we feel that it is a step in the right direction. That is why we also support this measure.

Buying a home is a big step for many families. It allows homeowners to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in this area. Many young families often have a hard time saving for a down payment to purchase their first home. In addition, since most people who are active in the workforce see their income increase over time, they often have to wait a while before they can purchase a property.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government give interest-free loans of up to $10,000 for first-time home buyers. That would have been a very significant measure, although, as I said, the tax credit is clearly a step forward.

I spoke earlier about the last election campaign. I imagine that many of my colleagues in this House and many candidates in the last election had the opportunity to meet with real estate agents, because they demanded action on the issue of first-time home buyers. While I was campaigning, I had the chance to meet with people throughout Quebec, including people in my own riding. We talked to them and listened to their suggestions. This proposal that first-time home buyers receive interest-free loans of up to $10,000 was very well received by the people I met with. They felt it could be an efficient and effective way to help people buy their first home. Real estate agents were very much in favour of this measure.

If this measure were implemented, it would complement the tax credit proposed by the government in Bill C-51 and make it easier for people to purchase their first home. Then we would have a comprehensive home buyers' program.

In terms of the economic measures presented in the budget, some of which would be implemented by Bill C-51, a bill that would put the tax credits into effect, as I started out saying just after question period, the government denied that there was an economic crisis during the last election campaign. Conservative members unfortunately showed up empty handed for the economic statement last November, which sparked a crisis. I will not dwell on it, but we came very close at one point to having a coalition government, and to returning to the polls.

They finally presented some measures, even if they were not complete, as I was saying.

We did our homework. We presented a stimulus plan that had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence to the public, which was experiencing—and still is—an economic crisis; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.

The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs. The best way to do that, of course, is through the employment insurance system. Economists agreed that one of the best ways to stimulate the economy was to help the least fortunate and in particular, to help those who, unfortunately, because of the economic crisis, lost their jobs. Needless to say, in the forestry sector, for example, people would have benefited from more extensive and flexible measures regarding employment insurance.

We suggested improving the employment insurance system by making it easier for people who lose their jobs to collect benefits. Our proposed changes would have enabled 148,000 more people to collect benefits every year. If we eliminate the waiting period, which is something the Bloc Québécois and other parties have been calling for for a long time, people will not have to wait 14 days for their cheques. We also suggested helping the most vulnerable with an investment of about $6 billion to help seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. And we suggested helping middle-class families by doubling the GST credit for 2009.

We know that the government has put economic stimulus measures in place. A lot of money was invested to help Ontario's auto sector. We were never against helping that sector, but according to the statistics, it is clear that the government helped Ontario at the expense of Quebec and the other provinces, but especially at Quebec's expense because its forestry sector got nothing. At any rate, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip when it comes to what Ontarians got. As of now, 100% of the $9.7 billion—nearly $10 billion—in direct federal cash for the auto industry has been spent. About 80% of the $70 million allocation has been spent developing new markets for the forestry industry across Canada. There is still a huge difference between $10 billion in support for auto workers and $70 million for the forestry sector across Canada. Moreover, while 100% of the auto sector's money has been spent, 20% of the amount announced for the forestry sector has not yet been disbursed.

So, for its economic recovery plan, it would have been in the government's interest to listen to Quebec, the provinces, the opposition parties, unions, workers and the National Assembly of Quebec. They all made urgent requests to ensure that a real economic stimulus package would be introduced, particularly for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The Quebec forestry industry employs over 88,000 workers and is an economic driving force in many regions of Quebec.

I was talking about employment insurance earlier. We heard some good news yesterday. Unfortunately, it does not have to do with the unemployment rate. There was some bad news on that, since it increased. The good news was that here in this House, a majority—except the Conservatives, unfortunately—voted in favour of Bill C-308 introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. That bill will now go to committee. It includes several measures for a complete overhaul in the context of an economic stimulus plan. It would have been great if the government had supported those changes, which are more comprehensive than the piecemeal changes it wanted to make in several different bills.

The Bloc Québécois bill proposes improving access to the system and establishing a 360-hour threshold for everyone, which would make it easier for women and young people, who are often the most likely people to lose their jobs, as well as people with unstable jobs, to access benefits. In addition, Bill C-308 proposes a benefit rate increase from 55% of earnings to 60%.

It also recommends amendments that would give self-employed workers access on a voluntary basis to all employment insurance benefits, unlike the Conservatives' Bill C-56, which offers self-employed workers access to special benefits only. Our bill contains measures that are not only practical, but comprehensive and very effective in helping the unemployed. This is what the Conservative government could have done.

We have no problem supporting Bill C-51. It is hard to be against motherhood and apple pie, even if the pie is not all there. This bill provides one piece of the pie that will help us, namely, tax credits, including the home renovation tax credit. I cannot say that people are lining up at my three constituency offices to ask for information about these measures, but I would be lying if I said that I had not answered any questions from my constituents about this tax credit.

Obviously, we are pleased to provide them with information, and some people I know have begun to consider applying for this tax credit. That is why we are agreeing to promote this type of measure by voting in favour of Bill C-51.

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-56, which will for the first time give a certain number of rights to self-employed workers, it is rather appalling that the major national parties are taking the credit for doing nothing to improve the living conditions of those who lose their jobs. It is quite surprising. They stated that they brought forward many proposals but at no time did they get together to finally take the next step of reforming the employment insurance program in order to restore its original purpose—to support and protect workers who have the misfortune of losing their jobs.

I am also surprised that two of my colleagues raised the fact that we could rejoice because of this bill and begin celebrating Christmas. I do not think there is anything to celebrate. There is no cause to celebrate, especially not for the unemployed because they will not be in a festive mood. In fact, I doubt that most of them have anything to be happy about, even at Christmas, because a large number—the majority of those who lost their jobs—will find themselves without income or with the small income provided by their provinces in the form of social assistance, the support of last resort.

Bill C-56 is not what is going to improve the situation. The only merit to be found in that bill is that for the first time it recognizes the rights of self-employed persons. Even though they do not have many rights, it is a first step, I would say, toward improving a social safety net that is perhaps, however, not identical to what other workers have. It needs to be improved, but it is a step in the right direction.

Members have been using the term “travailleurs autonomes” for self-employed persons. The term used in the bill is “travailleurs indépendants”. That is fine with me. We like it a lot, even though it also refers to workers who are federalists. But if we talk about workers who are “indépendants”, that is fine with me. The more there are, the better, not independent workers but people who are going to work for Quebec’s independence.

In recent years, the Bloc has never stopped calling for coverage for self-employed persons. In the last two economic recovery plans we presented, there were very specific measures for self-employed persons, particularly in the last one we presented in this House.

Bill C-56 refers to four kinds of special leave, but two of them will not apply in Quebec. Why? Because since March 1, 2005, there has been an agreement between Quebec and the federal government to transfer responsibility for maternity and parental leave to Quebec, along with part of the deduction for premiums that was to be allocated to support that program. Right now in Quebec, about 500,000 workers are considered to be self-employed.

Bill C-56 also provides for access to the program to be voluntary. We shall see whether making it voluntary, with the criteria being proposed at present, does not create problems in terms of genuine protection for those people.

We support the bill in principle for the reasons I stated at the outset. For the first time, it grants rights under the employment insurance scheme for self-employed persons, and in that respect we welcome this initiative.

We very much hope that the government, that is, the Conservative Party, will be open and work with us on making amendments to its own bill.

What also causes problems for us, and we will submit this for debate, is that we were hoping that when self-employed persons were given rights it would also mean granting employment insurance benefits from the point when they found themselves jobless.

An individual who owns a small business or is self-employed may sometimes in fact find themselves with no contract or no retainer so they can continue to work. As a result, they are left without an income. II think this is an aspect that should be debated. Certainly we are going to work to have this bill passed on second reading to make sure it can be debated in committee.

There is also another problem, however. In my view, it is a major problem. That is the entire question of how premium rates are set, which seems to us to be somewhat random. As well, the projected premiums for the benefits that will be made available to these people seems to be much too high.

Remember that the bill is intended to provide self-employed persons with benefits during special leave. There are four kinds of special leave. There are maternity benefits for up to 15 weeks and parental or adoption benefits for up to 35 weeks. We agree on that. The maternity and parental leave benefits are the parts that cost the most, 75% of the total estimated cost. This is a responsibility that Quebec already assumes.

That means the bill does not apply to self-employed persons in Quebec. Only some of its provisions apply. The two provisions that apply are sickness benefits, for up to 15 weeks, and compassionate care benefits for up to six weeks. However, these two benefits account for only 25% of the total cost of Bill C-56.

The members can probably see where I am coming from. Self-employed persons in the rest of Canada will pay their full contribution to be entitled to these four benefits, while in Quebec, they will pay their full contribution to be entitled to only two benefits, representing 25% of the total cost.

Self-employed persons in Quebec are going to contribute as if they were receiving all four of the special kinds of leave I listed, in addition to the benefits they get if they lose their job. There is something very questionable about this.

The answer we are given is that as self-employed persons, they are assumed to be employers as well and the employer’s share will offset their contributions.

Even if we follow this reasoning and add the employer’s share, the final amount is still much less. This even implies that the transfers currently provided to Quebec for maternity leave and parental leave are far too low. That is another debate, though, that we will take up in another forum.

For the time being, let us just say that the cost of this for self-employed persons in Quebec is clearly too high. Some very specific work needs to be done to give us the information we requested. I hope we will get it. We had a briefing two evenings ago with some senior officials. We asked for the actual cost of each of the measures in the bill: the actual cost of the maternity leave and parental leave, the actual cost of the compassionate care leave, and the actual cost of the illness leave. They are nowhere to be found here. We have to refer to the amounts that Quebec pays for parental leave and maternity leave. We conclude from this that the cost is clearly too high.

The coverage that is provided applies to self-employed persons earning at least $6,000 a year. I understand this is to facilitate the accounting rules in regard to taxation. The contributions that self-employed persons make will be determined when they fill out their income tax returns, that is to say, at the end of the financial year on the basis of their income during that year.

This brings me to another aspect of the bill that we need to take a closer look at. Self-employed workers who pay their premiums this year and then take six weeks of compassionate care leave, the purpose of which is to provide end-of-life care, would therefore be making a commitment to contribute for the rest of their working lives as self-employed persons. Yet, participation is said to be voluntary. I can understand that they cannot just make an opportunistic contribution and pull out after availing themselves of the plan. I understand that. We should, however, see if something could not be done differently, because this seems to be going too far.

Those who contribute for one year will be able to withdraw from the plan at any time, provided they have not availed themselves of it. If self-employed individuals join—and let us not forget that participation is voluntary—they will be able to withdraw, as long as they have not availed themselves of the plan. Otherwise, they will have to participate for the rest of their working lives. We should look for a way to come up with a more realistic measure with respect to the type of commitment self-employed workers have to make.

Before yielding the floor to a member from a different party, let me remind the House that, in Quebec, the self-employed will continue to benefit from maternity and parental leave administered by Quebec. Therefore, they will not benefit from this bill like the rest of Canada.

They will be charged the same amounts, which represent 75% of the costs, while Quebec will be assuming the largest part of the costs, given that maternity leave and parental leave make up 75% of special leave costs. The percentages for the self-employed will be reversed. While the federal government bears 25% of the costs, they will have to pay 100% in terms of premiums. The way the Conservatives look at it, this represents 75% of the total cost, and the federal government will be responsible for 25%. We estimate that the self-employed will be paying 50% too much.

This bill also provides that a person who is absent from work because of a work-related injury will be covered. In Quebec, we have a program supervised by the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, the CSST, which covers costs and which pays benefits to a person who is absent from work because of an occupational injury or disease. Federal coverage will now be provided, but this will not benefit Quebec, because it has already provided such services since the late sixties. Quebec workers are paying good money for that protection. In fact, it is primarily employers who contribute to the fund, because of their responsibility as employers. Providing coverage in Quebec will not cost the federal government anything because coverage is already provided, but self-employed persons will have to pay premiums to the federal government. This is another point that we will have to examine very closely during our review in committee.

What we need is a comprehensive overhaul of the employment insurance system. As we mentioned, Bill C-308, which I sponsored for the Bloc Québécois, proposes some measures that should be part of this process, including working 360 hours to qualify for benefits, making the 50-week benefit period—instead of 45 weeks—permanent, and increasing the rate of weekly benefits to 60% of a claimant's earnings. Our bill also provides coverage for self-employed persons.

The government would have achieved two things by supporting Bill C-308, ensuring its passage through all the stages, and not seeking royal assent. This would have allowed us to do a really conscientious job and, more importantly, would have been socially responsible, because we would have taken into consideration a number of factors to avoid the aberrations that we mentioned earlier and that will have to be corrected along the way.

So we are going to support the principle of this legislation, as long as we can make the amendments that I suggested earlier. In the meantime, I urge the government and all parliamentarians to also support my Bill C-308, at third reading, in the near future.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for the work he has done on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and also for convincing his Liberal colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-308, a bill that reforms employment insurance, at second reading. We dare to hope that the Conservatives will vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

I have the following question for my colleague. He mentioned that he had a hard time understanding how the government determined the premiums for self-employed workers. They also seem illogical to us, compared to the benefits, especially in Quebec. He mentioned quite rightly that Quebec has had its own plan since March 1, 2005. This plan came out of an agreement with the federal government to transfer responsibility for maternity and parental leave to Quebec, along with a transfer of 35¢ per $100 of earnings.

I would like to know how my colleague and his party understand this approach, which consists in having self-employed workers pay the full premium when they receive only a portion of the benefits and job loss benefits are not even included. Yet these workers will pay the same amount as if they were covered for job loss benefits.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-308 under private members' business.

The House resumed from October 29, consideration of the motion that Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I did not make that noise, it was our Conservative colleague. It bothers him to hear that and for good reason. If I were in his shoes, I would be ashamed to have to maintain that position. That is enough to make him do what he just did.

Bill C-308 contains measures that do not have the budgetary impact or require the financial commitment indicated by the Conservative government. The Conservatives have a tendency of inflating figures. For example, at some point they stated that the bill would cost $4 billion and later it was $7 billion. They are like someone who wants to put down his dog and, when he does, blames it on rabies. When they want to kill a bill they say that it will cost $7 billion or $8 billion.

The costs are very limited because there are two measures that are may require spending. On the one hand, we have the 360 hours; on the other, lengthening the benefit period. The benefit period has already been increased to 50 weeks. We just have to keep it the same.

We are at a point, especially during this economic crisis, where we have to recognize the damage we have done to the system and the impact it has on the unemployed.

I invite all my colleagues in the House of Commons to vote for this bill, which will restore some dignity to those who lose their jobs.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague from Chambly—Borduas for introducing Bill C-308, which seeks to make badly needed reforms and improvements to the employment insurance program.

It is imperative to restore the true purpose of the employment insurance program, which is to give workers the assurance that they will have supplementary income if they lose their job.

Here is some background for those who have forgotten the real mission of this program. When employment insurance was created in 1940, eligibility was based on the number of weeks an unemployed worker had worked in a previous job. Since 1996, eligibility has been based on hours worked during a given period, regardless of the number of jobs a person has held. This change meant that more workers could contribute to the plan, including part-time, temporary and seasonal workers and students. But these workers, in addition to being vulnerable, had a hard time qualifying for benefits because the minimum number of hours of work needed to qualify was increased.

Coverage started with the first hour worked, and the eligibility threshold was based on hours, not weeks of insurable employment. The eligibility threshold for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force was raised from the equivalent of 700 hours to the equivalent of 910 hours.

New contributors became the first victims of this new rip-off by the Chrétien government, because the vast majority of them were now excluded.

The government brought in a new measure: the intensity rule. Under this provision, benefits rates varied from 50% to 55%. The rate went down as the number of weeks of benefits received during a five-year period went up. This reform gradually reduced the maximum benefit period from 50 to 45 weeks. The government initially provided that, after five years, those who were subject to this rule would no longer be eligible for benefits. To justify their action, the Liberals claimed it was an incentive to work longer.

I should also mention that the government has not paid a single cent into the EI fund since 1990. Only workers and employers pay into the fund. But that has not prevented the government from raiding the EI fund and stealing money from the unemployed.

We can see the sort of consideration these members had for workers in regions where employment is often seasonal in sectors such as tourism, fishing and agri-food.

It is worth reminding the government that an insurance premium is not a tax. The government seems to forget that. Using the employment insurance fund to reduce the deficit and finance other general expenses is a departure from the principle and the purpose of this insurance plan. The unemployed have been the real victims of the war against the deficit waged by governments, who have reduced their debt at the expense of those who needed that money. By abusing this fund, the government has turned employment insurance premiums into a new tax. Employers are subject to a supplementary tax to provide employment and workers are taxed for going to work. This strategy is an abusive use of that money, and I would go so far as to say that it is the theft of the century.

Even during this economic recession, the government was not justified in attacking the unemployed instead of unemployment. Now, this $54 billion surplus must be used for its original purpose: to provide financial support for the unemployed. We have to restore a law that fully plays its role of protecting all workers. Anything else is embezzlement.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is important to clear up any misunderstandings and reinstate the original intention of the plan as an insurance program for workers who lose their employment and not a tax on employment.

By making this draconian change to eligibility for employment insurance, the Liberal government, and the Conservatives today, have contributed to making workers poorer and are the architects behind the increased level of unemployment and the slow recovery of the economy. What is more, by helping themselves to the surpluses generated by this fund, the governments have behaved like true white collar criminals. In the private sector, if entrepreneurs or administrators acted that way with the insurance fund, they would have all been thrown in jail.

The changes to employment insurance changed the ratio of claimants to unemployed from 84.5% in 1989 to 46.1% in 2006. Under the Liberals, when the surplus in the employment insurance fund reached its peak, insurance coverage under the plan had never been more restrictive.

Access to employment insurance dropped from 57% in 1993 to 43% in 2006. Today, with Bill C-308, presented by the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, we want to correct past wrongs and give this social plan its original purpose back.

Here is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing: lower the eligibility threshold to 360 hours, and not only in times of crisis, which is what the Liberals are proposing; increase the duration of benefits; increase the weekly coverage rate to 60%; eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm's length; increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $41,500; and introduce an indexing formula. Finally, the bill would also allow self-employed workers to access employment insurance.

The Conservative government now has a golden opportunity to help the victims of the economic crisis and make a significant contribution to economic recovery. For the Liberal Party, this is an olive branch, an opportunity for them to clean up the mess they made with their previous reforms.

If the Conservative members vote once again against these employment insurance reforms, they will be demonstrating once again that their political party is antisocial and anti-Quebec, and that they prefer to maintain their actions and their reforms for the benefit of wealthy people and for Ontario. In sum, they will be demonstrating that their party caters to big business, especially big oil.

Who will pay for this? Once again, the Quebec nation. When the government refuses to help workers who have just lost their jobs, those people have no choice but to dip into their savings, and finally, to turn to social assistance as a last resort. Once again, Quebec is left to take care of these people who need help, although that money should come from the federal government. It is important to say so. Once again, the government is transferring one of its responsibilities. It is transferring this financial burden to the Quebec nation. We will continue to denounce this.

I will close by saying that the money that belongs to workers should be given back to the workers. Furthermore, the fact that this government refuses to help workers is undermining our economic recovery, because they are not injecting any money into the businesses that need it.

The Conservatives are giving everything to Ontario and nothing to Quebec. Most of the workers in the Quebec forestry industry have lost their jobs. This government has another opportunity to help businesses become viable and reduce the number of people who will lose their jobs. Once again, the government prefers to help wealthy people and to help Alberta by giving oil companies tax breaks, instead of helping unemployed workers who have paid their premiums and whose money is being stolen from them.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

I listened carefully to my hon. colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche who just spoke. I think that he has superbly summarized the very real difference for a seasonal worker who, because of where he lives or his line of work, has to make use of this employment insurance system.

I also listened carefully to what the member for Nepean—Carleton said, despite the fact that he had a very hard time with the word “exacerbate”. In fact, I would suggest that he listen to the recording; he will understand why some members in the back were chuckling. He was trying to entertain us with notes prepared by the Prime Minister's Office. This is quite natural, given that he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

In real life, people who are deprived of employment insurance visit our constituency offices. I find particularly contemptuous the way the member for Nepean—Carleton attacked the unemployed and the idea of providing them with more assistance. As the member for Madawaska—Restigouche just pointed out so aptly, this is money that is going straight back into the economy. Instead of playing favourites, the best way to jump-start the economy is to put money into people's pockets so that they can spend it in their local communities. The issue having been covered from other angles, I will give a concrete example, then provide an analysis of how this disastrous situation with the EI account came about.

This is the type of real life situation we encounter in our riding offices. A young teacher came to see us last summer. He was to teach a summer course but it was cancelled because not enough students enrolled where he was teaching. He had been a supply teacher during the year and accumulated 896 hours of employment. I remember the figure. The number of hours would normally have been enough; however, he actually needed 910 hours. That is the reality. It is difficult to accumulate 910 hours as a supply teacher. That is real life. During the summer he had to support himself and was struggling.

Let us now examine what the Conservatives have done with the employment insurance fund since coming to power and what the Liberals had started doing before them. This fund had accumulated $57 billion in premiums paid by each and every employee of all companies. It did not matter whether the company made money, broke even or lost money because every company and every employee had to contribute to the employment insurance fund. This money was set aside to help workers cope with the predictable cyclical nature of employment in Canada.

To create tax room and give the richest companies a gift, they plundered $57 billion from the employment insurance fund. Then they created $57 billion in tax room. In fact they gave $60 billion in gifts to companies. How did they do that? They transferred the moneys from the employment insurance fund to the government's general revenues. Some may say that it is not a big deal because it was always the government's money. However, it is a big deal because these moneys, as I just explained, were paid by all companies, even those not turning a profit or losing money.

Who got the $60 billion? By definition, if a company does not make a profit, it cannot benefit from tax breaks because it does not pay taxes.

So who got the money? Oil companies like EnCana in Alberta in the Prime Minister's backyard. EnCana received hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money. That money was paid directly to EnCana. The Conservatives raided the employment insurance fund and put the money into the government's general revenue fund. Then that cash was given to the richest companies, oil companies and banks. That is the Conservatives' fiscal policy. Never mind other issues, their jokes about a 45-day work year and so on, that is the sad truth about what the Conservatives did.

Then, because all that cash was given only to the companies that had made the most money, economic sectors that were already struggling, such as the forestry sector in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick and the manufacturing sector, got nothing.

Since the second world war, Canada has managed to build a balanced, stable economy. We are the second-largest country in the world, and we have barely 30 million people. It took a lot of doing to occupy all that land and make it productive. But it also took some planning and an understanding of resource sectors, such as forestry and mining. The same goes for the processing sector, as well as the service sector, which is providing more and more value to our economy.

Their policies have completely destabilized the balanced economy that Canada has enjoyed since the second world war because they have given all of the money to western Canada, specifically to the oil and banking industries. Well before the current crisis that hit Canada 13 or 14 months ago, during the first two and a half years of their minority government, the Conservatives caused the loss of over 350,000 jobs. Those job losses occurred mainly in Quebec and Ontario in the forestry and manufacturing sectors.

That is the Conservatives' sorry track record. Their economic approach is so ideological that it is practically dogmatic. Everything is fine as long as it is in their interest. The rest of the time, they say that people who want the government to play a role in the economy are out of line because they are trying to decide who wins and who loses.

In reality, they were the ones who determined the winners and losers in advance. They were the ones who decided that the big oil companies and the banks would be the winners. They took money from workers and businesses and transferred it to the winners they had already chosen. That is how their dogma. The hypocrisy here is that they lecture us about the free market, as though a true, clean, free market were the decider of all things. That is absolutely not the case.

They also intervene as much as anyone who came before them, except that they systematically intervene in favour of the rich. That is the difference between this side of the House and the Conservatives. When they have a choice to make, instead of deciding to help the least fortunate, to help those who need it most, their first instinct is to talk down to them, as the Prime Minister's parliamentary assistant just did, to make fun of the unemployed, not to help them, and to say everything is just fine. Everything is fine because they stole money that should have gone to the unemployed, and they gave it to their buddies, the oil companies and the banks.

That is the Conservative approach. By not taking into account the real environmental impact and environmental costs of the oil sands, they are making things worse. The Canadian dollar is on the rise, making it increasingly difficult to export our manufactured goods. The main reason for our high dollar—obviously we have become an oil powerhouse—is the arrival of petrodollars from the United States.

We export crude oil from the oil sands, and we also export jobs: 18,000 jobs were directly exported to the United States. We do not even do the pre-processing here. What is even worse is that with this year's $60 billion deficit, we are racking up debt for future generations instead of leaving them clean, renewable energies.

The Conservatives are passing down the opposite of sustainable development to future generations, and they will be very harshly judged. They love to get their pictures taken with future generations. It is time for them to start taking action for these future generations.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy this afternoon to speak to Bill C-308, introduced by my colleague for Chambly—Borduas. This bill contains a host of measures for employment insurance. I will have the opportunity to talk about some of them.

First, I would like to talk about the provisions which would reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work. I must say that it is completely absurd and distressing to hear the comments from the Conservative members, in particular the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. When we hear their comments, whether they are quoting other people or not, we can see clearly that, in their minds, people who work 360 hours are people who do not deserve employment insurance benefits or people who do not want to work. Some Conservative members should visit rural areas where work is seasonal. Perhaps they would see that the situation is different from elsewhere in the country.

I hope I will not hear, in this House, any more such comments from Conservative members. I invite them to visit a riding such as mine and many other rural ridings, where seasonal work exists and where people have recourse to employment insurance, not because they voluntarily leave their job, but because there is no more work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that this could increase the number of seasonal workers, but one must understand that, under the Employment Insurance Act, people who voluntarily leave their jobs are not eligible to receive employment insurance benefits. How is it possible that more people would receive benefits under a 360-hour rule? It is impossible. People who voluntarily leave their jobs are not eligible to receive employment insurance benefits. How could this measure worsen the employment insurance program as it is today?

We must also look a little further. A threshold of 360 hours was chosen because we want to make sure that workers will be eligible. At present, people from all over the country are not eligible for employment insurance because they do not have enough hours, specifically because of the economic crisis.

I would like to come back to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who was talking about the action plan. The action also serves to ensure that people who lose their jobs will have an income. But let us be clear: that income would be negligible. These people will not get rich with employment insurance.

We have seen some alarming statistics this week. People are losing their jobs, are no longer entitled to employment insurance or have never received it, even though they paid into it. They have to turn to income support. They are forced to do so, because the program is not what is needed in the current crisis.

Our position is very clear: the eligibility threshold should be 360 hours, as my colleague from Chambly—Borduas indicated in Bill C-308. The eligibility threshold should be 360 hours in order to deal with the economic crisis, to ensure that those workers who need it, the most vulnerable workers, can continue putting food on the table for their families. I do not think this is particularly difficult to understand. If we took away some members' salaries for a few weeks or a few months, perhaps they might realize that putting food on the table is a real challenge for some people. I would guess that this is not the case for the members of this House.

It appears that the members on the other side of the House believe that people just want to receive employment insurance and not work for the rest of the year. It is not their fault if they need employment insurance; they lost their jobs. They did not leave their jobs voluntarily. If that were the case, they would not be entitled to employment insurance. When I hear such nonsense in the House, I can only hope that one day, this will be clearer in the minds of many members.

Other factors are aggravating the situation.

The Conservative government seems to be saying that it is there to help. That is what it seems to be saying, but where is it helping? When it introduced Bill C-50 it talked about long-tenured workers. According to the Conservatives, seasonal workers are not long-tenured workers. But they are. They worked for 10, 15, 20, 30 or 35 years not only in the same industry, but in the same company. However, at some point during the year, they must cease working. It is not because they want to. It is not voluntary. They do not want to stop, but that is the reality. However, according to the Conservative plan, all seasonal workers, people who work in forestry, fishing, agriculture, road building, construction or tourism are not eligible for a single cent. There is absolutely nothing for them. That is why we wonder who will qualify for a single cent under this bill.

There is worse. A student who has completed his or her university degree and has worked for one or two years and who unfortunately loses his or her job will not be eligible for those additional weeks of benefits. A mother who decides to stay at home for a few years to take care of her children and who loses her job after having been back at work for a few years will not be eligible for any additional weeks of benefits, contrary to what the Conservatives would have us believe.

In the end, on EI issues, the Conservative program is certainly not a good one. We get the impression from them that people just do not want to work. But there is worse than that, a lot worse. They are proposing a new tax in the form of additional contributions. The Conservatives want to raise annual EI contributions by $600 for each and every worker. That is not money the workers will receive but extra contributions they will have to pay to be eligible to benefits. For businesses, it would be $840 per year.

The government talks about employment insurance, but it tries to take as much money as possible out of workers' pockets. That is what I call a tax on workers, or a tax on work. On the other hand, the government is making sure that workers cannot qualify for benefits after working 360 hours. I am convinced that the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas does not stop at this 360 hour threshold. I am sure he agrees with people working 450 hours, and if they have the opportunity to work 700 hours, he will be happy for them, just as I would be happy if people in my riding could work 700 hours. However, that is not always the case, and the situation is not the same everywhere in Canada. So, why not ensure that, in a time of economic crisis, people can qualify for financial assistance?

We also have to be realistic, whether or not we are going through an economic crisis. When someone has money in his pockets, he is going to spend it. He is going to pay for his basic needs, such as shelter, heat, transportation, gas and groceries. That is the reality. If a person does not have money, he cannot spend. And if that person does not qualify for EI benefits, he is not getting any money at all, and he simply cannot spend.

In the context of economic recovery, if someone has money, he will make sure that he can pay for his basic needs. So, making people eligible for EI benefits allows them to have some money. They are not going to invest that money. They are not going to follow the Prime Minister's advice, who once said that when the stock market is experiencing some turbulence and people are losing their pensions, that is the time to buy stocks. That is not the point. If people have money in their pockets, they will be able to buy groceries. If they have more money, they will be able to buy other things.

These are all basic needs, but the government must show compassion. The system must be a compassionate one, but members of this House must also show compassion. All MPs must realize the importance of maintaining the EI program, and of looking at eligibility, so that nobody is left out. In doing our job here, we are supposed to behave like good fathers. Therefore, let us make sure that we do not forget anyone. Let us make sure that we look forward and that we provide the necessary tools and incentives to workers and their families, so that they will feel their government is a good government. Right now, they cannot feel that way.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the member for starting this debate.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to his bill, Bill C-308, and I thank the member for putting it forward.

As the House has heard, this bill seeks to make far-reaching amendments to the employment insurance program including reducing the entrance requirements to a minimum of 360 hours of work for regular benefits. Let us put this into clear language. What the member and his party propose is a 45-day work year. Our government believes that the amendments proposed by the bill would be nothing short of a policy catastrophe.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick once said that history is a better guide than good intentions. While I have no doubt about the good intentions of the hon. member, history shows us the components of the bill are nothing more than a return to the Liberal policies of the 1970s. These policies would have the same catastrophic effects on our economy today as they did then. These are not just my words. In using the term “catastrophic effects” I am quoting David Gray, an economist with the University of Ottawa, who clearly articulated these points in early August. This is when the Liberals were still espousing the 45-day work year as a panacea for the entire EI system. This was before the Liberals walked out on the EI working group, abandoning Canada's unemployed.

One of the primary objectives of the EI program is to provide temporary income support to Canadians who are between jobs. In other words, the program is designed to help unemployed Canadians facing transition find employment and reintegrate into the workforce. Shortening the qualification period for EI would be tantamount to encouraging higher employment turnover of workers. The result of that kind of misguided policy would be a permanent rise in the unemployment rate.

Allow me to quote the Canadian Chamber of Commerce from its July 23 press release:

--moving to a national standard of 360 hours or 420 hours of work as the basis for qualifying for EI...would have substantial adverse impact on Canada's labour market -- it would discourage work, increase structural unemployment, exacerbate skills and labour shortages, and stifle productivity.

On August 1, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the 360-hour proposal was “just ludicrous”.

On the same day, Colin Busby, a policy analyst with the C.D. Howe Institute, said that lowering the entrance requirement “could create seasonal unemployment where maybe it didn't exist before. The consequence of lowering [the minimum threshold]...in places like Alberta from 700 hours in most places to all of a sudden 360...it's likely that you'll create more forms of seasonal unemployment over time”.

On June 3, in the National Post, Jack Mintz said that the flat 360-hour proposal, this 45-day work year proposal, is one of the worst ideas getting serious attention”.

The government is focused on taking prudent action to help Canadians and help them get back to work as soon as possible. Our economic action plan is working on three fronts by protecting jobs, providing income support and helping families and Canadians get the training they need so that they can get back to work as quickly as possible and on to a new career path.

The proposal put forward in Bill C-308 would truly hurt our ultimate goal of encouraging and supporting unemployed Canadians in their efforts to get back to work. The issue is not access but rather duration, duration of benefits and ensuring that people can transition effectively into the workforce.

Let us look at how this government has addressed the issue of access.

According to the results of a Statistics Canada employment insurance coverage survey, among the unemployed who have paid premiums and then been laid off or quit with cause, 82% were eligible to receive EI benefits in 2008. In fact, fewer than 10% of those who paid premiums and lost their jobs lacked the required hours to qualify. Furthermore, since last October, more than 82% of Canadian workers who qualify and are in need of accessing EI do qualify and are receiving the benefits.

As a result of the variable entrance requirement, from October 2008 to September 2009 access to EI became more responsive for workers in 38 of 58 regions across Canada. These include 15 in Ontario, all 6 in British Columbia and all 4 in Alberta. In light of these statistics, I trust the hon. member opposite will appreciate that the variable entrance requirement mechanism far better meets the needs of unemployed Canadians across the country than do changes proposed in his bill to accommodate a 45-day work year.

It is also very important to note that during this period where work has become more difficult to find during this global recession, the duration of benefits has increased. Our economic action plan is now temporarily providing an additional five weeks of EI right across the country.

In regions of high unemployment, we are also increasing the maximum number of weeks of benefits available under the EI program from 45 to 50 weeks. This means that claimants who previously had their benefits capped at 45 weeks can now receive an additional 5 weeks.

Our Conservative government has introduced more measures in Bill C-50 to ensure that Canadians who worked hard and paid into the EI system for years are now provided the help they need while they search for employment.

This bill will provide between 5 and 20 weeks of additional benefits to long-tenured workers should they need the extra help. This is an important step for Canadian workers who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives, but because of the global recession and through no fault of their own have found it difficult to get back into the workforce. In these challenging economic times, these measures are giving hard-working Canadians who would otherwise have had to use up all of their benefits more time to find a job.

We have also said that we will be introducing further legislation to help the self-employed. All of these things are good for Canadians.

While the current economic environment is very challenging, under the prudent management of this Conservative government we are seeing progress. The economy will recover. This is why we have proposed that regular EI and long-tenured workers measures that enhance the system will be temporary. One of the reasons for these temporary proposals is that we were facing a labour shortage before this economic downturn and we will be facing the same challenges as the economy begins to recover.

That is why we acted early to help the hardest hit. That is why we expanded work sharing, which is now protecting over 164,000 jobs, making sure that shops do not lose their workers and workers do not lose their skills. This action by our government will help Canadian businesses gear back up when times are better.

To ensure that Canadian workers have the skills that our economy needs, we have increased training programs. We have helped people to transition back into the workforce with the best skills so that they can compete not just with their neighbours but with the whole world.

While I thank the member for putting forward this matter for debate, I respectfully suggest that it is a bad proposal and I will be voting against it. However, I will continue to support our economic action plan which helps people who are going through hard times get back on their feet.

When this global recession is over, Canada will emerge stronger than ever.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before resuming debate on this bill, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on September 14 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to the bill, the parliamentary secretary noted a number of its provisions which, in his view, infringed upon the financial prerogative of the Crown. Specifically, the bill reduces the qualifying period for benefits, permanently increases the benefit period, increases the benefit replacement rate to 60%, alters the benefit calculation formula, and increases the level of maximum yearly insurable earnings as well as introducing an indexing formula that would further increase benefits.

Furthermore, he pointed out that the bill would expand the employment insurance system to provide benefits for the self-employed.

In support of his contention that the bill requires a royal recommendation, the parliamentary secretary made reference to a Speaker's ruling concerning Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), presented during the 39th Parliament, found at page 4719 of the Debates of November 6, 2006. That bill was found to require a royal recommendation.

In his intervention, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas put forth arguments very similar to those put forth in the debate regarding Bill C-269, mainly that the funds in the employment insurance account are paid by workers and employers and therefore do not constitute government funds.

The Chair has carefully examined Bill C-308, and compared it with Bill C-269 from the 39th Parliament and has also reviewed the reasoning in the earlier Speaker’s ruling. The Chair notes that Bill C-269 contained a number of provisions either identical to or substantially the same as those in the bill in the present case.

In my view, it is clear that Bill C-308 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. As for whether the funds in question are government funds, I refer hon. members to the ruling of June 13, 2005 at page 6990 of the debates which stated that:

Sections 71 to 77 of the Employment Insurance Act establish the operation of the employment insurance account as part of the consolidated revenue fund. Amounts are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and charged to the account--

It is evident that the bill seeks to increase employment insurance benefits, thus increasing the expenditures under that Act. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1).

Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.

The House resumed from September 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, I considered what you said earlier, namely, that this was not a point of order. This has enabled me to bring up the topic of comprehensive reform.

This situation, this political philosophy... Our two witnesses also brought up this political philosophy earlier. Currently, we have put so many restrictions on money coming into the fund that we now want to justify the fact that we are no longer able to pay for measures that, normally, should be included in the employment insurance program. Mr. Céré said it very well: it is not a matter of what the premiums cost, but a matter of how we use them.

During the past 13 years, $57 billion was taken from the employment insurance fund. This is money that belongs exclusively to workers and employers, since they are the ones who made the contributions. If the two successive governments had respected the primary purpose of this plan, we would not be where we are today. We would only be dealing with Bill C-241-- the wait time. That's where we would be today.

Why are we making such a big deal of this and finding it so expensive? Because we cannot take it in isolation. We are now saying--Mr. Ouellet pointed this out--that we are taking one measure. So we asked ourselves if there was one measure that could immediately benefit all the unemployed, that would not necessarily add two weeks to their benefits. And this is it.

The opposition, which is in the majority, did in fact recognize the relevance of this bill, and because of the philosophy that I described earlier, the Conservatives are grabbing on to measures that don't help the unemployed, quite the opposite.

As far as the concern raised by our two witnesses is concerned, I would also like to mention that I will be making a speech in the House in an hour and a half--and other colleagues will be doing so as well--on Bill C-308.

We are going in your direction, Mr. Lobb, because you spoke earlier about accessibility measures. In the summer, you formed a committee with the Liberals, a committee we called a phoney committee. I think that the Liberals believed in it and worked very hard. This did prove to be a phoney committee, however, but with respect to accessibility. Finally, you will have an opportunity to speak about accessibility, because you appear to be concerned about it. By next week, we should be able to give our thoughts on Bill C-308, at the second reading.

Mr. Chair, I do not necessarily have any questions for our two witnesses, but I would like them to use my comments--for the time remaining--to weigh in with their arguments, if they feel it appropriate.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my friends from the central labour bodies and I thank Ms. Washington for having come to testify here today. You must be aware that, in the House of Commons, opinion is divided about Bill C-50. This committee is studying it to get a better understanding of if, and most of the time, we are guided by clarifications from people like yourselves.

Sometimes, by wanting to rush things, we miss out on the clarifications. The motion that was tabled yesterday by our colleague Mr. Godin could have deprived us of the clarifications. Others will provide clarification too. When we are just dealing with a technical measure that is intended to determine the way in which the bill will be implemented, an exercise like this is worthwhile in any democracy. I believe that you work in the same way in the labour movement.

Mr. Georgetti, I entirely agree with your opinion about the comprehensive reform of employment insurance that must be done. You probably know that I tabled Bill C-308 on behalf of my party; it includes most of the measures that you mention. During the previous session of Parliament, we, together with the Liberal Party and the NDP, made some headway towards some amendments to the bill. We could have done it, but because of the rules of Parliament and the election, everything was dropped.

I am also reminded that, as we listen to you here, we are consulting, and in every one of our ridings, my colleagues, even those who are now talking and disturbing everyone, are also holding consultations. For a bill of this nature, we consulted with those whom we call the have-nots, as well as labour confederations, groups of the unemployed, and so forth. You are probably aware that they think that this bill should not be held up.

Mr. Chair, this is such a disturbance. I do not know if they are at same meeting as we are. I do not want this to eat into my time. I find it very disturbing and lacking in courtesy towards our guests. I hope that we have not upset them too much.

In a word, this bill establishes that there are good unemployed people and bad unemployed people, with all the disqualification that implies. You have done an extraordinary job, as we have, in amending the employment insurance system so that more unemployed people can have access to it. However, this bill contains measures that will eliminate as many people as possible. The minister has said that this bill is for those workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. There cannot be many unemployed people who are responsible for their own unemployment. I think that we share this opinion.

This bill is based on a similar principle. I would like to hear more from you about the good and bad aspects of this bill. Let me finish with this, just to make myself clear. This bill disqualifies people. Senior officials told us that, of the 757,000 unemployed people in July, only 30% were close to exhausting their benefits. Twenty-one per cent of this group would be affected by Bill C-50; that comes to 49,600 unemployed people in all of Canada. This is far from the figure of 190,000 unemployed.

I would especially like to hear from you, Mr. Georgetti, and probably you too, Mr. Weir, because, like the NDP, you maintained that the real figure was not $935 million but $1 billion. To get to $1 billion, 85% of the claimants would have to have exhausted their benefits.

I would like to hear what you have to say about that.

Bill C-308

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order.

On September 14, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a point of order claiming that Bill C-308 required royal recommendation because, and I quote, “it would require new spending”.

According to Marleau and Montpetit, the rule about royal recommendation is this: Bills that involve the expenditure of public funds must have a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, allow us to bring to your attention the fact that Bill C-308 would enable people who have lost their jobs to benefit from an insurance fund to which they contributed, an insurance regime whose funds, need I remind the House, come from contributions made by workers and their employers.

So how can they claim that a royal recommendation is needed to spend money that workers contributed to the employment insurance fund so that they could collect benefits if they lost their jobs, when the whole purpose of the bill is to use that money to improve access to benefits and the benefits themselves? That money does not belong to the government; it belongs to workers.

Employment Insurance Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

He should refer to Bill C-308, which we introduced and which contains the 360-hour eligibility threshold, with a general reduction of 70 hours in the number of hours required to qualify for employment insurance.

Regional factors should also be reviewed periodically to ensure that they truly reflect the new reality. With regard to the level of employment, it naturally changes a great deal especially in these times. That has been the case for Ontario in particular. In the past, this province was not as hard hit by unemployment. Now look at the unemployment rate in Ontario. The member is right about that. The committee is also looking at that issue.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister’s speech earlier, and it would have been appropriate to ask her several questions which have not been answered. Despite the briefing session yesterday by officials from the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, certain questions remain unanswered with regard to the persons targeted by this bill. Who does Bill C-50 include and who does it exclude? These questions have still not been answered.

Yet one has the impression that the department is fully aware of the answers, since it has said that 190,000 unemployed persons will be eligible under these measures, for which there is a budget of $935 million. Therefore, we are entitled to specific answers to the type of questions I have just raised. But no, there are no answers. So we must look into the impact that this bill may have on the people who have lost their jobs.

First, let us look at what is not covered in this bill. It does not cover the nearly 60% of unemployed people who do not qualify for employment insurance right now. There is nothing to improve accessibility for all those who do not qualify. Furthermore, according to the department’s own Web site, over 55% of people are presently excluded from the system. So there is nothing for them.

Moreover, this bill excludes young people, women, the self-employed and a good many seasonal workers, for these are the categories of persons who make most frequent use of employment insurance. Let us remember the rule set forth in the bill: one must not have drawn more than 35 weeks of benefits over the last seven years. In other words, that automatically excludes seasonal workers, women and other persons who move in and out of the labour market. So this applies to quite a lot of people.

The minister says that 190,000 people will be able to benefit from this measure. Allow us to doubt this. In fact, the minister accompanies this statement with another, about the cost of $935 million. For a budget of $935 million to be needed, 85% of the people receiving employment insurance benefits would have to use all of their allotted weeks of benefits. But that is not the case, since only 25% of people use them.

So let us remember this: to arrive at the extra $935 million projected in the bill, 85% of people would have to use all their allotted weeks of employment insurance benefits.

Facts are stubborn things, and they shed the brightest light. In this case, the fact is that only 25% of people reach the limit of the number of weeks to which they are entitled. In other words, we come back to between 25% and 30% of the amounts already announced.

We were not given specific information. So we asked in writing how one could arrive at this result, but were provided no answer. So we worked it out and understood that, in fact, this will cover 60,000 persons—at the most—out of 1.5 million or 1.6 million unemployed people in the country. This also changes the number of millions of dollars. Instead of approaching $1 billion, we are closer to $300 million, at most.

Perhaps they can prove otherwise. This they have not done. They make statements without being able to show the method by which they arrived at the results they present. The calculation must be done over again. If you were to do this as well, Mr. Speaker, you would find that you end up with the same result.

My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour spoke briefly about the shamefulness of the situation, that is, why there is no pilot project.

Usually, when such a project of a specific duration is presented, the government does not have to formally table it in the House. It says that taking steps to set up a pilot project is one of its prerogatives. It could very easily do this. It does not need to come here. On the other hand, the government is well aware of the shamefulness of what it is doing. To introduce such a bill, it has to create a third category of the unemployed, what the Conseil national des chômeurs is now calling “the bad unemployed”. According to the government, there are the good unemployed and now the bad unemployed.

Some people have contributed to employment insurance at such a level that they qualify for the program and have had the good fortune not to have to claim employment insurance benefits. It is the most vulnerable who are excluded. All those who are included are those who have had the benefit—and I am happy for them—of a stable job over the last 7, 8 9, 10, 11 or 12 years, since the bill sets the eligibility rules based on the weeks to which you are cumulatively entitled, on a rising scale. The better a contributor you have been to the fund, the fewer benefits you have received, the more gold stars you earn and the more weeks you qualify for.

Fair enough. Naturally this will favour certain people. In my opinion, the employment insurance system has to be improved from top to bottom, not piecemeal as is the case at present. Some people will see an improvement in their benefits as a result of this bill. This must not be a bill that is discriminatory or arbitrary toward certain segments of society that are being favourably targeted. In fact, it is not a favour, since this it belongs to them as well. But why discriminate against the others? That is the question we have to ask.

Let us return to the idea of a pilot project. What is shameful is having the House and all the parties present vote on and sanction a bill that is discriminatory. Naturally we are not opposed to the principle of this measure. What we do not accept, and what the House must not accept, is discrimination against the majority of unemployed people.

This morning the hon. member for Joliette moved that the bill be referred immediately to committee so that this type of debate can be held and appropriate amendments made for the purpose of removing these discriminatory measures. Why?

In our view, an effort has to be made, even if this is not something that is going to reform the entire system. We believe that it is necessary to make this effort. It must not be done just any old way. We must not abandon those who are in need of the fastest assistance.

This bill also prevents us from debating the crux of the problem—the fact that the employment insurance program has become outdated and does not reflect today's reality. That has happened because it has been drained of the resources required to properly fulfill its mandate of providing benefits equitably and for enough time that people can live with dignity. We know that the former and current governments diverted billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund every year for the past 13 years. The current estimate is that $57 billion was taken out of the employment insurance fund.

A number of people who participated in this debacle would be quite happy if we stopped talking about it. But we never will because it is an injustice. It represents a serious economic crime that was committed against the unemployed, families, and regional economies and communities in every province. In Quebec, people have had to apply for social assistance because almost 60% of those who should be eligible for employment insurance have been excluded.

In recent years, we have proposed concrete measures. We have tried to make this House aware of the fact that more people must have access to employment insurance. We are looking at 360 hours. We are pleased that the Liberal Party has also taken up the cause. The Liberals rallied to our side when we debated Bill C-269 in the last session. We also made recommendations to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the last session.

I would like to talk about the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in February 2005. The committee recommended the measures that we now find in Bill C-308, which I was honoured to introduce on behalf of my party. We had a one-hour debate at second reading this week in the House.

I can list the measures. They include, of course, the 360 hours. We must ensure that everyone, without discrimination, permanently goes from 45 to 50 weeks. We want benefits to be raised to 60% of the claimant's income. This is a sensible measure that immediately injects money into our economy. We are calling for the waiting period to be abolished. That is a measure that costs the government nothing, because the individual receives the money at the beginning of the two weeks instead of at the end. This way, people are able to receive benefits from the beginning, and it puts money into the economy immediately. This spring, the Conservatives promised to introduce changes to allow self-employed workers to voluntarily participate in the employment insurance program. They did not follow up on this, and that is also in our bill. We are demanding that there be no more discrimination against people who work for a family-owned business and are related to the owner.

When we talk about comprehensive reform that truly takes into account the difficulties that unemployed workers are facing, these types of measures are the ones we need to take, and not the piecemeal measures that discriminate against people, as we are seeing now.

A little earlier, I spoke about the fact that the employment insurance system is currently based on two criteria that help determine eligibility and access to benefits, and they are the number of hours worked and the unemployment rate in a given region. The current bill, as it stands, creates a third criterion based on contributions to and use of the system. This is the cornerstone of this bill, and that is what we must focus on in this debate.

That is why, this morning, our House leader made the recommendation to send the bill to committee immediately. However, to our surprise, the Conservatives refused, even though the three opposition parties were in agreement. Why did they refuse? As the others have already said, they were playing politics, petty politics, to stall the debate and put pressure on the opposition parties. By stalling the debate, they are effectively delaying the implementation of this bill. It is hard to find anything worse than that. Once again, they are playing twisted political games with the lives of workers, and that has no place here.

Two examples support what I am saying. The first, which we heard about earlier, is the pilot project. That approach would be perfect. So far, that is how it has always been done, since it is a short term project. The second example is the refusal to debate it immediately in committee. What does the Conservative government have to gain by that? Ultimately, by drawing out the debate, first here in the House with five hours of debate today, and sending the bill through all the normal steps, the deadline, which is mid-October, will not be met. The Conservatives can then say that it was the opposition that was stalling.

This is completely outrageous and unacceptable.

Since this time last year, 500,000 workers have lost their jobs in Canada, including 70,000 in Quebec. We have come back to this House over and over again, trying to have Parliament adopt measures to help these people right away. I cannot help but think of the forestry industy in Quebec, for instance. There is really nothing in this for that industry, which is a shame. We have been refused every time. It has been drawn out. Now the Conservative government is afraid of being ousted, so it comes to us at the last minute with vote-catching measures that take into account only certain needs, and it wants to put all the blame on the opposition for delaying this bill.

In closing, I would like to remind the House of our position from this morning. We remain convinced that Bill C-50 must be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for study. Otherwise, we will be forced to vote against it, if this course of action is not done properly. I do not see how we could go back to our constituents and say that we agreed to a bill that is discriminatory, arbitrary and that favours one option that will go on for so long.

Employment Insurance

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we need a comprehensive reform of the employment insurance system.

Once again, the Conservatives who promised to do things differently are copying the Liberals and making the unemployed and the contributors to EI pay for the current deficit.

Instead of once again going after the unemployed by dipping freely into the fund, why does the government not look for ways to help workers by supporting the Bloc's Bill C-308, for instance, which we debated just this morning in the House?

Employment Insurance Act

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially happy, for at least two reasons, to have an opportunity today to rise on Bill C-308, introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. The first, of course, is that I am deeply concerned about the flaws in the current employment insurance system and the proposals for remedying them. The second is that the Conservatives and Liberals set up a phoney committee to discuss these issues behind closed doors and it is wonderful to finally have a chance to hear the positions of all the parties in the House.

There are many problems with the current system, but we are very familiar with them all because they have been pointed out repeatedly by the various stakeholders. As early as February 2005, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities produced an exhaustive report with no fewer than 28 recommendations to reform employment insurance from top to bottom.

But it remained largely a dead letter. Both the Liberals and Conservatives ignored its conclusions, even though they were very reasonable and appropriate. No one should be surprised, therefore, that we in the Bloc Québécois took a rather jaundiced view of the announcement that a secret committee on employment insurance would be quickly and quietly convened to save face in view of the thousands of unemployed people who would have been able to take immediate advantage of the measures in Bill C-308.

This bill does not reinvent the wheel. All it does is pull together the best proposals for finally improving the accessibility of an employment insurance system that has been strait-jacketed for far too long by the restrictive changes introduced by the same Liberals who say now in public that they are outraged but then vote in favour of a budget that does nothing.

The most shocking thing about this refusal to finally re-open the eligibility requirements is the ideologically driven insistence on seeing all unemployed people as potential cheats. The government’s way of thinking was on display as recently as last Friday in the report from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer when it estimated the cost of a standard eligibility requirement of 360 hours.

The government assumes in its calculations that, in addition to the 166,000 existing unemployed, more than 180,000 people would qualify under the new standard and would try to take advantage of it by voluntarily quitting their jobs, with the connivance of their employers, after accumulating enough hours to qualify. As we know, voluntary departures have not been covered for a long time by the current system.

It is only in this way that the government is able to conclude that changing the minimum requirements would cost about $2.5 billion, or more than twice the estimate of the parliamentary budget officer. It is hard to imagine a government with more contempt for its own citizens. It is especially sad to think that this contempt and these suspicions are penalizing people who have had the misfortune of losing their jobs. The government is basically treating 180,000 Canadians, and therefore more than 40,000 Quebeckers, as potential liars and scam artists.

I have a question now for the government. If the intent to commit a crime is just as punishable as the crime itself—as it is in the Canadian Criminal code—perhaps the government thinks that it should rush out and arrest these people who might commit fraud? Let us make no mistake. This is the exact same logic behind the government's imposition of a two week waiting period. The same logic applies to people who do not deal at arm's length with the employer. It is up to them to prove beyond a doubt that they have no intention of defrauding the plan. This does not take into account the fact that the procedure can take a number of months, even a year, before the applicant is deemed to be acting in good faith. All this cynicism is extremely discouraging.

Perhaps we should remind the government of the principle underlying the seven measures proposed in Bill C-308—attempting to help the unemployed by increasing benefits and eligibility does not amount to promoting unemployment. On the contrary, these measures have a single aim—to enable the unemployed to retain some dignity despite the difficult times they face.

Let us review these measures here, one by one. The first, and perhaps one of the most important, is to introduce a standard qualifying period of 360 hours across the board. Despite the claims of the Conservatives, who clearly have not taken the trouble to study our proposal seriously, there is absolutely no question of granting the maximum number of weeks of benefits to anyone who has worked 360 hours. This is misinformation, as my colleague has just said.

One need only consult schedule I of the bill. An individual who has worked 360 hours would be entitled to between 14 and 36 weeks of benefits. Entitlement to 50 weeks, the maximum under this bill, would require over 1,115 hours of work and residence in a region with a level of unemployment over 16%.

If this measure were passed, it would substantially reduce the phenomenon known as the spring gap, the period in which many seasonal workers receive neither income nor benefits.

The second measure in Bill C-308 concerns the weekly benefit rate. At the moment, as everyone knows, the rate is set at 55% of insurable earnings, to a maximum of $41,300 a year. This bill proposes to increase it by 5% to set it at 60%.

Over 166,000 Quebeckers—nearly two thirds of whom are women—earn minimum wage, which is currently $9 an hour. This means that these workers can earn a maximum of $173.25 a week or $9,000 a year. Clearly that is far too little to live on decently.

The third measure in this bill, which perfectly complements the previous one, is to increase the maximum insurable earnings to $41,500 and introduce a guaranteed annual indexing formula. This increase would generate additional revenues and thus fund some of the improvements proposed by this bill. According to the figures of the human resources department, this increase would lead to additional revenues of $420 million and spending of $245 million resulting in a credit balance of $175 million.

Fourth, the bill also proposes finally eliminating the discrimination facing people who are entering or re-entering the workforce—the Liberals put forward that distinction in 1996. Those individuals are unfairly penalized, especially women who often leave the workforce to care for their children. That is why, according to a study by the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, only 16% of young unemployed workers under 25 years old are receiving EI benefits, while in the early 1990s, that proportion was 52%.

The fifth measure aims to correct the problem I mentioned earlier, namely, the presumption that workers who do not have an arm's length relationship with their employers are basically guilty until proven innocent. Of course, this goes against the presumption of innocence that is pivotal in all modern judicial systems, and enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and its Canadian equivalent.

Sixth, Bill C-308 amends the formula used to calculate insurable earnings; the calculation would be based on the 12 best weeks in the 52-week qualifying period.

Lastly, this bill opens the door to the possibility of self-employed workers taking part in the EI system on a voluntary basis. According to the most recent numbers, over 16% of Canadian workers are self-employed at this time, and that number has risen recently particularly because of the recession. It is high time we offered them the opportunity to enjoy some sort of income security.

These seven measures would undoubtedly correct many major deficiencies that exist in the current employment insurance system—first, by improving it, but also by removing certain provisions originally put in place to address the terrible suspicions that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have seemed to harbour against unemployed workers.

In closing, losing one's job is rarely a joyous occasion. Having to prove to the government that one is not trying to cheat the system is even more humiliating. Workers who find themselves in that situation are reduced to begging the government for assistance that they rightly deserve, assistance that they themselves have paid for, day after day, week after week.

That is why I invite all parliamentarians to look at this bill not simply as a way to improve the system, but as a way to correct certain glaring injustices.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-308 introduced by the member for Chambly—Borduas.

It is common knowledge that this bill is very important to me, just as it is to a great many workers throughout the country. This is a bill that the NDP has proposed quite a few times in the House of Commons.

Some people may not know or may have forgotten that in 1997, when I was elected, the same changes were being studied. Cuts to employment insurance were initiated by Brian Mulroney and continued through Jean Chrétien's tenure. In 1996, employment insurance cuts were disastrous for the country and for the workers.

I feel obliged to start off with a few comments. The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is trying to tell us that the Liberal Party—I do not know if the members have seen the light at the end of the tunnel—wants to be the saviour of employment insurance.

At the same time, the Liberal Party is saying that this is temporary. That worries me. What does “temporary” mean? I heard the leader of the official opposition, the Liberal leader, say that temporary means “as long as there is an economic crisis”. As soon as the economic crisis is over, this temporary measure will be terminated. We are already hearing on the news that the crisis may soon be over. But we do not really know how long it will last.

The bill will set 360 hours as the number of hours required to qualify. I have a problem with the Conservatives' position on 360 hours. It is as though they have always said that it would cost $4 billion and that too many people would receive employment insurance. To hear them talk, only 15% of workers are not eligible for employment insurance. According to their data, 85% of workers pay premiums and are eligible for unemployment benefits and only 15% are not. It is as though all of Canada were applying for benefits. Come on. There are 33 million workers in Canada.

What an insult to the workers when we say to them that if we bring it down to 360 hours, they will all get on EI and they will be on EI instead of working. What an insult to working Canadian men and women and the people of Quebec. What an insult.

I was in France not too long ago, and I asked how much people were getting paid for employment insurance. It was 80% of their wages. I used the Conservative argument and asked whether they thought that at 80% of their wages, people would want to be on EI instead of working. The representative of the government said that their people love to work, that they want to go to work, but that in the meantime, they do not want to punish the family of the person who has lost his or her job, and that they invest the money in the community. That is good for the economic crisis.

When I went to France, I asked the question. People can check if they want. In France, employment insurance recipients receive 80% of their wages. I asked a question that could very well have been asked by the Conservatives or the Liberals: do you not think that people who get 80% of their wages in EI benefits would want to be on EI instead of working? The government representative said no, that people want to work and are eager to work. It is their own employment insurance system, paid for by employers and employees. He said that they are proud of the fact that they have a good income because they can spend that money within the community, which is good in tough economic times.

The government and the Liberals are saying that people are lazy, that they do not want to work. About the 360 hours, where is the government taking its figures when it says that it will cost $4 billion and that nearly everybody can get EI benefits already? This obviously makes no sense whatsoever.

I listened to what the government representative was saying earlier. The parliamentary secretary was saying that all the changes proposed by the Bloc Québécois would cost more than $4 billion. There are several changes: 360 hours; increasing the benefit period; increasing the rate of weekly benefits to 60%; eliminating the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force; eliminating the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length; increasing the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $42,500 and introducing an indexing formula; and adding a new part VIII.01 to the act relating to self-employed persons.

Now they are changing their tune and saying that it will cost $4.1 or $4.2 billion. And they are also saying at the same time that reducing the number of hours to 360 will cost $4 billion. Which figure is the right one?

What is the right number? The 360 hours are supposed to cost some $4 million, and the parliamentary secretary of the Conservative government said that all the changes of the Bloc would cost $4 million. I would like to hear the right number.

The real figures indicate that it would cost $1.4 billion. That money belongs to workers in case they lose their jobs.

I heard the Liberals say that it was terrible. I read in BC newspapers that people in that province should be treated the same way as those in Atlantic Canada, in Regina and across Canada. The 360-hour rule should apply to everyone. It was the Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, who established the varying threshold, increasing the number of hours from 420 to 700 and then to 910. That is why we are saying that there is not much difference between the Grits and the Tories. They all take their orders from Bay Street. That is where the decisions are made.

However, for those workers who lose their jobs, the decision is made on Monday morning when they no longer have a job to go to and wonder how they will support they family. They wonder whether they should get EI benefits or welfare benefits. That is where it hurts.

When people say that the country will go into debt if changes are made to employment insurance, which debt are they talking about? The former Liberal government and the current Conservative government stole $47 billion from the EI fund that belonged to workers. So we should be able to say that there is a fund with surpluses and to use that money.

We must study the possibility of making changes to EI. It is a serious issue. We must ask ourselves what we can do to help workers. People must stop telling tales and giving false figures.

It has always been said—and experts said it—that only 38% or 42% of people who contribute to EI are eligible for benefits.

Therefore, since the Conservatives keep telling us that this is false and that 85% are eligible, why are they so afraid of the 360-hour rule and why do they think that the whole country will receive EI benefits? Why are the Conservatives so worried? A mere 15% is not that much, if I am to accept the government's arguments.

It is the same thing with the workers referred to in the bill put forward by the Bloc member, those who are related to the owner of the business. We want to have small and medium sized businesses and promote them. That is the right thing to do. To build a business, one starts by hiring family members, and then, as the business grows, they start hiring outside the family. It is discriminatory to deny benefits to contributing employees when they are laid off because they are related to the owner of a business who pays his or her taxes. It is discriminatory because the decision is simply based on the fact that a family relationship exists. They have to be treated like any other employee. If they did their job, worked the hours, paid their premiums and lost their job, that is what matters. The current approach is totally discriminatory. And there are such cases.

I am thinking of the Liberals, the so-called saviours of EI. I am sorry, but that makes me laugh. They are the ones who, in 2005, voted down a motion I had put before the House of Common, asking that the 12 best weeks be used in calculating benefits in order to help the workers. The Liberals did that. They also increased to 700 the number of hours of work required to qualify and established requirements that vary across the country. To listen to some people, 360 hours is the end of the world. One should remember that all that was required previously was 150 hours.

The myth about these 360 hours allowing individuals to receive benefits for one year is fallacious, because people are entitled to benefits for a given number of weeks.

Let me conclude by saying that we will certainly support the bill from the Bloc Québécois.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, here we are back in Parliament in the fall, again speaking about employment insurance. It is almost as if we never left.

Much has happened over the summer but little has changed. We still have a Conservative government that puts politics before people, that does not see EI as the fundamental and critical part of our social infrastructure that is so necessary at a time of difficulty, but rather a government that sees EI as a political tool, a blunt instrument to divide Canadians, to divide Parliament, as part of a strategic ploy hatched to distribute false and misleading information to Canadians.

This is a government that uses false statistics and never allows facts or truth to get in the way of its goal to divide this country. These are the traits, indeed, this is the character of the government. Employment insurance is but one example.

Today we look at the work of my colleague, the distinguished member for Chambly—Borduas in Bill C-308, who today introduced his bill in this Parliament and is worthy of consideration. One of the most important things in his bill is the issue of a 360-hour national standard for eligibility. This is something that has had a lot of attention, not just from members of the House but from people across the country.

Let me just give a couple of quotes from people who might be recognized across Canada.

B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell said in August, “What we’re really saying is Canadian workers, whether they live in the Maritimes, the West or North or Ontario, we should treat them the same way”.

Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan, said “Instead of 50-plus different treatments for the number of qualifying hours, we need to dramatically reduce that”.

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said, “An unemployed family, whether they live in Nova Scotia, Quebec or Alberta, are equally unemployed”.

The TD Bank, in July, said, “The truth of the matter is that during an economic downturn, it is no easier to find a job in a region with lower prevailing unemployment than in one with a higher unemployment rate”.

Pierre Fortin, economics professor, said of the Leader of the Opposition that his proposal of 360 hours was not a problem. It was just and it was fair.

The Star Phoenix in Saskatoon said, “Clearly, EI services should be equally applied across the country. Isn't that what being a nation is all about”?

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who my colleague, the parliamentary secretary referred to, said:

A measure to improve the equity of the EI system that would be consistent with longer-term smart policy aimed at improving labour mobility and flexibility would be to immediately and permanently make the duration of, and access to, benefits equal--

How about this one: “An unemployed worker is an unemployed worker and deserves to be treated the same, regardless of region of residence. We will urge the immediate elimination of discriminatory EI elements such as regional entrance requirements”. This was said in the Reform Party of Canada platform statement authored by the now Prime Minister of this country. Let me repeat the last bit, “We will urge the immediate elimination of discriminatory EI elements such as regional entrance requirements”.

Here we are. We resume Parliament more or less where we left it off in June. As the session ended last spring, we all remember that we were on the verge of an election. It was averted when our leader and the Prime Minister agreed to a joint committee that would spend the summer looking at improvements to EI, specifically two things: regional fairness, which was our issue, and the Prime Minister added the issue of the self-employed. That was the proposal from the Conservatives, part of which they had promised in the last election but had not acted upon.

We had these meetings. I was there along with my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Kevin Chan from our leader's office, and three members of the opposition. The meetings were difficulty but I do not suppose that this particularly relevant. People do not care how we spend our summer time.

The bottom line is that the Conservative members of this committee stalled, delayed and brought nothing to the table, absolutely nothing serious. I do not believe this was unintentional. The Conservative members broke confidential protocols. It had been decided that there would be certain protocols about confidentiality. At almost every turn the Conservative members prevented departmental officials from giving information that we had all agreed to, including the Conservative members. That is unbelievable.

The Conservative members leaked a document that they themselves indicated should not be leaked. I am looking at it. It says “Employment insurance working group--not for distribution”. The members brought that to a meeting. The only problem was, it was already given to the media. Why would the Conservative members do that?

Mr. Speaker, I can see you are shocked. The Conservative members did it because there was false and misleading information in that document. They increased the cost of the Liberal proposal for regional fairness by over 400%, not a little bit.

I took the decision to ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of this House, to review the government numbers. We now know the result of that.

The PBO, appointed by the government, came back and said, yes, the government inflated the cost and, in fact, indicated that the actual cost of our 360-hour temporary proposal was slightly under the cost proposed by the Liberals.

This is some of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said in his report:

The government's total cost estimate overstates the cost of the proposed 360-hour national standard. The Parliamentary Budget Officer believes that the government's dynamic cost estimate is flawed. More important, the PBO also believes that only the static costs should be considered in costing the proposal, given the structure of the program and that the proposed change to the EI system is in effect for one year only. This is the independent officer of this House and this is what he came back with.

The response from the government was that it did not change anything. The government first ignored it, then continued to mislead and still used, as recently as Friday, the $4 billion, even though everybody knows that it was discredited.

That is how the summer went.

I was asked many times by people across the country, including people in my own caucus and in my riding, “Why do you keep going to these meetings? You know that the Conservatives are not serious. They have not presented anything. Why would you keep going back?” We went to every scheduled meeting, to try to find a consensus.

Canadians have more important things on their minds than to follow what is happening with an employment insurance working group. However, to the extent that they paid attention, who could blame them for saying that that was just an extension of a dysfunctional Parliament? Who could blame them for saying, “You have just dragged question period throughout the summer. You guys can't get along in the House of Commons and you can't get along in the summer”? Who could blame them for saying, “He said this and she said that; you're all equally to blame”?

We tried to make it work. We went to those committees to try to make those committees work. Yes, we had an opening position, supported by many people across this country: economists, labour leaders, anti-poverty groups, even business people, and premiers of provinces who have many representatives on the other side of this House. We had that position, we presented it, and we all agreed that we would go away and get that costed. When the number came back, it was distorted.

However, beyond that, we also asked other questions. These are the questions we tabled to the group on July 23.

What is the current deficit in this year's EI account?

What are the components of that deficit? There was no answer.

How many Canadians have seen increased access to EI by region?

What would be the incremental cost of having a 360-hour national standard for eligibility?

We also asked, at that same meeting in July, what would be the cost of a 395-hour standard and a 420-hour standard?

We asked, how many Canadians draw benefits for the maximum duration?

What percentage of claimants are expected to draw the maximum weeks? Perhaps extending benefits further is a very sensible thing.

We did not get answers to all of those questions.

We also asked, in areas where the unemployment changes the eligibility criteria, how does the time lag between job loss of people becoming eligible for benefits go into the issue of a three-month average versus a one-month average to determine eligibility?

We asked all those questions.

We followed the protocols of the working group. We established the working group, we established protocols, we followed those protocols, and we expected answers. We were told we would get answers.

At the last meeting of the group, the minister told us that he told the department not to even bother with that, not to even bother with the stuff that we all agreed with.

Many of us in this House come from backgrounds in business or labour organizations or other non-for-profit organizations. We do negotiations as a way of doing business to make perfect not be the enemy of better. However, we all know, whether we are in labour or management or any other organization, it takes two to make something happen.

Employment insurance to the government is a ploy. It is part of the game of politics.

Here today, as Parliament resumes in the fall, we are where we left off in the spring, and for the government the games continue.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in the House after spending the summer seeing our economic action plan create jobs.

With respect to this bill, to put it quite simply, and with deference to my colleague, the bill is not sound policy. It is therefore unsupportable. It proposes a significant number of changes to the EI system, a veritable laundry list of the oppositions' demands with respect to the system.

Among many other changes, this bill proposes a flat 360-hour national entrance requirement, and a permanent flat 360-hour requirement at that. Not only would this bill be unaffordable and irresponsible now and in the short term, but it would also be increasingly unaffordable, irresponsible and economically damaging over the long term.

As this proposal is a big ticket item in this bill, I would like to take time to discuss it in some detail. I know my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre noted the substantive cost to it. My learned colleague started in the low billions and then added to that list.

This bill would permanently reduce the EI entrance requirements to only 360 hours of work for regular benefits. Let us be perfectly clear about what this means. Three hundred and sixty hours is 45 days of work, just nine weeks. In reality this is a proposal for a two-month work year supported by the Liberal opposition, specifically the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. This program's history shows us that the 360-hour idea is nothing more than a return to the failed Liberal policies of the 1970s.

On August 1, in The Canadian Press, referring to this time and these negative Liberal policy effects, University of Ottawa economist David Gray said, “What happened in '71 to my mind was a policy catastrophe”. To repeat it today, he said, “would just be catastrophic for the Canadian economy”.

Shortening the qualification period for EI would be tantamount to encouraging a higher turnover of workers. The result of that kind of misguided policy could be a permanent rise in the unemployment rate.

Others agree, and I will quote the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's July 23 press release. It said:

moving to a national standard of 360 or 420 hours of work as the basis for qualifying for EI would have substantial adverse impact on Canada’s labour market--it would discourage work, increase structural unemployment, exacerbate skills and labour shortages, and stifle productivity.

All those are not acceptable. Simply put, they are ill-advised. Those are the not the sorts of policy outcomes the House should be pursuing.

Allow me to quote a few others. On August 1, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the flat 360-hour proposal was “just ludicrous”. It really sums it up.

On June 3, in the National Post, Jack Mintz, now the Palmer Chair in Public Policy at the University of Calgary, said that the flat 360-hour proposal is “[one] of the worst ideas...getting serious attention”. He said that, “shortening drastically the qualification period [for EI] would encourage greater turnover of workers, result in a permanent rise in the unemployment rate and impose a high economic cost”. It becomes quite clear what sorts of problems this 360-hour proposal carries with it.

The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development calculated the cost of this sort of proposal, and to put it mildly, it is costly. A 360-hour national entrance requirement including new entrants and re-entrants to the workforce, which this bill would do, and including the costs incurred by making the 360-hour standard permanent, which this bill would do, and including the related behavioural or dynamic effects of this permanent change, brings the cost of this policy alone to $4 billion. My learned colleague speaks in billions of dollars as well.

In addition to that, we would have to provide for the costs of all other changes proposed in this bill. This could be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. This would not be responsible at this time.

Where do these many billions of dollars come from? They come from Canadian workers and employers; eventually that is where they come from. But the immediate effect would be to further increase the federal deficit. I think it should be clear to everyone that this 360-hour, two-month work year proposal is a very costly and irresponsible policy.

The proposals put forward in the bill would truly hurt our ultimate goal of encouraging and supporting unemployed Canadians in their efforts to get back to work. The two-month work year proposal is unacceptable as policy and unacceptable to hard-working Canadians. It is a policy change this government will not be pursuing.

I know the opposition has been talking about access to EI. I would like to point out that EI access is high among those persons for whom the program is designed. According to Statistics Canada's 2008 employment insurance coverage survey, 82% of the unemployed who have paid into the program and have either lost their jobs or quit with just cause were eligible to receive benefits. In fact, fewer than 10% of those who have paid the premiums and then lost their jobs lack the required number of hours to qualify.

These high rates of access are due in large part to the variable entrance requirement. As of September 2009, 38 of the 58 EI regions have seen their entrance requirements decrease and their benefit durations increase. That is the way it was intended to work. During this same period, more than 82% of Canadian workers gained access to EI.

Right now, the duration of EI benefits is something very much worth addressing. Bill C-308 does propose a change of duration. It proposes to make permanent the temporary five extra weeks of EI benefits this government introduced as part of Canada's economic action plan. Our government implemented this measure because we recognize that during these challenging economic times people need more time to find employment. We also temporarily increased the maximum duration of benefits available from 45 to 50 weeks. As of August 30, close to 289,000 Canadians had already received additional benefits and both of these measures will be in place for new claimants until September 2010.

While our government firmly believes that these measures are providing immediate support to workers and their families right now, we anticipate that these measures will no longer be needed a year from now when they are scheduled to lapse. Making these additional weeks of benefits permanent, as this bill proposes, may hinder economic recovery by contributing to disincentives to work and labour shortages when the economy rebounds. We do not think this policy proposal is a responsible measure to take.

Of significance, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has announced that she will be introducing more measures shortly to ensure that Canadians, who have paid into the EI system for years, are provided the help they need while they search for employment. This will be an important step for Canadian workers who have worked hard, paid their taxes their whole lives, and have found themselves in an economic hardship that they did not create.

Our government has already made a number of improvements to the EI program to support unemployed Canadians to help them get back into the workforce. We are providing five extra weeks of benefits. We made the EI application processes easier, faster and better for businesses and workers. We have increased opportunities for unemployed Canadians to upgrade their skills and get back to work. We are assisting businesses and their workers experiencing temporary slowdowns through improved and more accessible work sharing agreements. More than 160,000 Canadians are benefiting from work sharing agreements that are in place with almost 5,800 employers across Canada.

We believe it is important to ensure Canada's workforce is in a position to get good jobs and bounce back from the recession. Career transition assistance is a new initiative that will help an estimated 40,000 long-term workers, who need additional support for retraining, to find a new job. Through this initiative, we have extended the duration of EI regular income benefits for eligible workers, who choose to participate in long-term training, for up to two years. We are providing Canadians easier access and training that is tailored to the needs of workers in our country's different regions.

Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: finding solutions to help long-term workers who have worked hard and paid into the system for years but are having trouble finding employment through no fault of their own; extending benefits to self-employed Canadians; and getting Canadians back to work through historic investments in infrastructure and skills training. The temporary measures under Canada's economic action plan are well suited to respond to the economic situation.

Our plan provides support to unemployed Canadians over the short-term. It is designated to meet the needs of the current economy and to help Canadians get the skills they need for the jobs of the future.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. We will invoke our right of reply another time because this morning we are just getting started with the debate on Bill C-308.

If we may, we will address the government's claims later on.

What a happy coincidence that we are debating Bill C-308, employment insurance reform, as the session begins. As everyone knows, people have been talking about this issue all summer and even earlier this year.

Before I begin, I would like to salute the people of my riding, who are celebrating the 400th anniversary of Champlain's arrival in the Chambly-Borduas area via the Richelieu River. This summer was full of festivities marking the event.

I would also like to salute my House of Commons colleagues, and I hope that we can get off to a positive start this session.

This summer, people were talking about a 360-hour provision for employment insurance benefits. We believe that this is only part of the solution to the problems plaguing employment insurance. It is time for a comprehensive overhaul of the employment insurance system, and that is why we have tabled Bill C-308.

This bill includes a number of changes to the current system, including reducing the qualifying period to 360 hours—I will discuss costs related to these measures shortly; increasing the benefit period, which is currently 45 weeks but has been temporarily increased to 50 weeks—we believe that should be a permanent change; and increasing the weekly benefit rate to 60% from 55%.

For those who did not tune into this debate the first time around, I want to point out that this bill would eliminate the presumption that persons related to one other do not deal with each other at arm’s length. Right now, people working for an employer who is also a relative must prove that they have an arm's-length relationship with company administration.

I would also note that a temporary measure was recently brought in to increase the maximum insurable earnings to $41,500. We believe that this measure should be permanent. This bill would also enable self-employed workers to qualify for employment insurance benefits.

That is an overview of the measures in Bill C-308.

Some will focus on the other measures that are not in the bill. But we have planned separate initiatives, and we have not neglected these measures, such as the waiting period, the abolition of the two-week waiting period, which is being examined in Bill C-241, introduced by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi.

In addition, regarding the increase in the number of weeks for individuals who are on extended leave because of a serious illness, epidemic or quarantine, we would like to increase the number of weeks from 15 to 50. This bill was introduced by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who has left this House, but the bill was saved by a motion from the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Joliette, so that it can be put to a vote in the House.

Motion M-285, moved by my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, would reinstate a program for older worker adjustment, for which the provinces would provide 30% of the funding and the federal government would provide 70%. This would ensure that those aged 55 and up who are not able to find new jobs receive an income until they reach the official retirement age, when they will receive income security.

The fourth additional measure is addressed in Bill C-395, introduced by our colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. This bill would protect workers who are affected by a prolonged labour dispute—more than 103 weeks—and would ensure that these workers, who have often been paying into employment insurance for 25, 30 or 40 years, are eligible for EI benefits when their employer shuts down the company after the 103 weeks. These are the other measures we have planned in addition to Bill C-308.

Since this time last year, we now have 500,000 more unemployed workers, including 70,000 in Quebec. Nothing has been done to help these people, although we are aware of all of the problems with the current system, which already excluded nearly 60% of unemployed workers from the possibility of receiving employment insurance benefits. We all saw the show put on by the Liberal-Conservative coalition this summer about the 360 hours. In a heartfelt speech, the member for Bourassa told us in June, here in this House, that if the Conservatives did nothing, it meant they were abandoning the workers and that these workers would starve. To ensure that this would happen, the coalition set up a bogus working group that has been recognized as such and that has produced bogus results.

Today, we need to debate this issue in this House. Are the parliamentarians here aware of the problems the crisis is causing for people who lose their jobs? These are problems faced by all the families who have seen their income drop because of job losses. The crisis also means a substantial shortfall for the regional economy. Many of these people will soon be dependent on provincial programs. Quebec, of course, has programs to help people in need.

The show we witnessed this summer is a non-starter. No one from the government or the official opposition is willing to say that they are going to stand up for the unemployed and correct the situation. The department's own figures show that in 1990, nearly 84%—83.82%—of people who lost their jobs could expect to receive employment insurance benefits. Today, 46% of people can expect to receive these benefits. This means that 50% of people have been deliberately excluded. The Liberals, followed by the Conservatives, created this economic tragedy for the unemployed, while managing to produce an EI surplus of between $3 billion and $7 billion year after year.

In the past 12 or 13 years, $57 billion has been diverted from the employment insurance fund.

Where will the money come from to pay for the improvements to the system? From worker and employer contributions. Instead of using this money for other purposes, the government should have put it toward the fund's stated objectives.

This opinion was shared by all the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I would remind this House that just four years ago, in February 2005, that committee made 28 recommendations to the House of Commons, in keeping with its terms of reference. The first eight of those 28 recommendations were unanimous. In other words, the four parties in the House of Commons represented on that committee had unanimously agreed to recommend that an independent employment insurance fund be created to prevent the government from dipping further into the fund. The committee recommended that the fund be used only to cover the costs of employment insurance. It also recommended that the money that had been diverted be transferred gradually to the employment insurance fund, as the Auditor General had called for. The committee further recommended creating a premium rate stabilization reserve, to provide for sudden increases in the number of unemployed workers; introducing a mechanism to stabilize premium rates; giving the government the power to set a statutory rate and implementing a $3,000 yearly basic insurable earnings exemption.

These recommendations were all unanimous. I would also remind the House that all three current opposition parties—the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—also unanimously recommended amendments that correspond exactly to Bill C-308. It will be interesting to see if the Liberals support that, if this time, they will remain true to the work they did with other members of the House, and if they will support their own recommendations in the House of Commons.

These amendments are: a permanent, rather than temporary, maximum duration of regular benefits of 50 weeks; that is, extending benefits by five weeks. We no longer hear the Liberals talking about that; now it is the Conservatives. At that time, the Conservatives also voted in favour of calculating benefits based on the 12 best weeks. The amendments also provided for an increase in the rate of benefits from 55% to 60% of earnings between periods. Once again, the Liberals agreed with us. The other measures included allowing self-employed workers access to the EI system, removing the arm's-length relationship—this is all included in Bill C-308—and eliminating the waiting period for those engaged in approved training.

We are very curious to see how our colleagues will vote. Of course, we encourage them to vote in favour of the bill as it was introduced, which would allow them to honour their commitment in this House. The Conservatives also voted for some of these measures back when they were in opposition.

As a final point, one might wonder whether the money is there. Yes, it is there. The cost is not as high as the Conservatives are claiming. We saw that in relation to the 360 hours. This measure will not cost $4.5 billion, as the Conservatives would have us believe.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer did an approximate calculation and estimated the cost at $1.2 billion.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On June 2 you made a statement with respect to the management of private members' business. In particular, you raised concerns about three bills that appear to impinge upon the financial prerogative of the Crown and invited the comments of members of the House.

One of the three bills you mentioned was Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system). Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I submit that Bill C-308 contains provisions that would change the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act, would require new spending and would, therefore, require a royal recommendation.

Bill C-308 includes the following provisions that would require new government spending.

First, Bill C-308 would reduce the qualifying period for employment insurance to a minimum of 360 hours of work compared with the current variable interest requirement, which varies from 420 to 700 hours, depending upon the unemployment rate of the region.

Second, Bill C-308 would permanently increase the benefit period by five weeks.

Third, Bill C-308 would increase the benefit replacement rate to 60% of insured earnings from the current rate of 55%. The bill also proposes to change the benefit calculation from the best 14 weeks of a claimant's earnings during a 52-week period to the best 12 weeks of a claimant's earnings during a 52-week period.

Fourth, Bill C-308 would increase the level of maximum yearly insurable earnings from $39,000 to $42,500. It would also introduce an indexing formula that would further increase the level of maximum yearly insurable earnings every year.

Finally, Bill C-308 would add a new part to the Employment Insurance Act to expand benefits for self-employed persons.

The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development estimates that the measures contained in Bill C-308 would cost as much as $4.3 billion per year.

Mr. Speaker, in previous rulings, you have ruled that other private members' bills on employment insurance were out of order because they would increase government spending and therefore require a royal recommendation. In particular, I would draw the attention of members to a November 6, 2006 ruling on Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), where the Speaker stated that Bill C-269 would reduce

the qualifying period for benefits...increases the weekly benefit rate...repeals the waiting period for benefits...increases the yearly maximum insurable earnings and...extends coverage of the Employment Insurance Plan to the self-employed. ... I have concluded that all of these elements would indeed require expenditures from the EI Account which are not currently authorized. I note as well that the summary of the bill lists three further ends which, at first glance, appear to me to involve other increases to expenditures. Such increased spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation.

I must rule that...Bill C-269 requires a royal recommendation.

Bill C-308 includes provisions similar to those in Bill C-269 from the 39th Parliament, which was found to require a royal recommendation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that Bill C-308 must also be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

moved that C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this bill, a very important bill, even though we see some flaws in it. I will follow up on the comments of my hon. colleague and address the accessibility of EI.

Seeing that my hon. colleagues from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and Saint-Lambert, with whom I work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities are both here, I will take this opportunity to remind the House that the committee is currently carrying out a study on poverty in the country. One point that everyone appearing as witnesses on behalf of their various groups is making is that the restrictions to the EI program put a terrible burden on individuals, make them poorer and make things worse for them. They are unable to have access to benefits despite the fact that, in many cases, they have contributed to the program for weeks and months.

We know that many steps were taken over the years to exclude as many people as possible from the program and that, as a result, a minority of those contributing to EI actually receive benefits. Previous speakers, except for those from the Conservative Party of course, recognized that this is a major problem that has to be addressed.

We are delighted that the Liberal Party now agrees with us and recognizes the need to implement measures as soon as possible. Such measures will help those who are losing their jobs, of course, but they will also contribute to the economic recovery.

Bill C-280, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from the NDP, calls for a minimum of 360 hours of work to qualify for benefits. Adding five weeks of benefits is another measure. Some might say that those five weeks have already been granted in the last budget, but I should point out that this is a temporary measure designed to get out of the current crisis.

Missing are a number of measures we would have liked to see come about. We would have liked benefits to rise from rise from 55% of insurable earnings to 60%. The same for the two week waiting period. I will come back to that later, when the bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois, a more comprehensive bill in my opinion, comes up for consideration.

We will also have some questions for our NDP friends about how the rules will be relaxed during the economic crisis, including new criteria for people who received employment insurance overpayments previously or who have received a penalty. The rules are not quite clear. I think that when we study this bill in committee, we will have an opportunity to go into detail in this area, which is still a bit vague.

All the same, we have to be realistic about the work that needs to be done. Earlier, I mentioned that our Liberal friends had expressed their intent to vote for this bill. However, we need to know their precise intentions. The only measure the Liberal Party has proposed so far—a proposal it has made over and over—is the 360-hour rule. The Liberals think that it is a way to help us get out of the crisis. But this bill includes a permanent rule that will last as long as the House believes it to be appropriate given the state of the economy.

That is the only measure the Liberals have discussed and debated up to now. For Bill C-280 specifically, we have to urge the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister to have a vote on this bill at third reading. Will they vote at third reading? Voting at second reading is a much smaller commitment when the Speaker announces that he does not intend to authorize third reading unless the bill receives a royal recommendation.

There is another important issue with respect to the credibility of the proposal. We have to remember that the system is what it is right now because of the previous government. The current government is making a mistake by keeping these bad measures in place. But it was the previous government that passed Bill C-17 in 1994, Bill C-12 in 1996, Bills C-32 and C-2 in 2000, Bill C-49 in 2002 and Bill C-23 in 2005.

That does not mean much, because they are just numbers. But each of those bills, which were passed and became laws, represent measures to limit access to EI as much as possible. According to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, about 44.6% of all people who claim EI can expect to receive benefits. That is quite serious, because it affects not only those losing their jobs, but also their families, the local economy, the regional economy and the economy of the provinces concerned.

We know that someone who does not receive EI benefits will eventually find themselves on welfare, which is administered exclusively by the provinces, even though this person made contributions to the EI system and the EI fund. But the Canadian government does not contribute one cent to this fund. I would call that a serious economic crime, because access to EI is being compromised. We know now that there was a surplus of about $57 billion that the government spent on other things over the past 12 years. That means that there are hundreds of thousands of families who have suffered because of these measures, some of whom have been plunged into poverty.

The Bloc Québécois has consistently brought forward bills that, every time, have been fought by the two big federal majority parties.

In conclusion, if the Liberal Party wants to be credible—because the Conservatives are hopeless, and this is clear from their right-wing measures that take away all the means to support the economy and especially the poor—it must first vote in favour of Bill C-280. It must in particular, as of June 19, join us in studying and debating in favour of Bill C-308, which I introduced on behalf of my party. This bill of course brings back the 360 hours and the 60% of income earned, eliminates the distinctions, eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length, and bases the calculation of benefits on the 12 best weeks.

This is my invitation to my colleagues here in the House. The time has come to fix the employment insurance system.

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business.

As members know, after the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills which at first glance appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the May 27 replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income) standing in the name of the member for Richmond—Arthabaska; Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) standing in the name of the member for Chambly—Borduas and Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute) standing in the name of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé give the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate.

Hon. members who wish to present their views regarding the need for a royal recommendation to accompany these bills, or any of the other bills now on the order of precedence, are encouraged to do so at an early opportunity.

I thank the House for its attention.

Employment Insurance Act

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be able to have an opportunity to speak today on C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

As you know, the Bloc Québécois defends the rights of workers who have lost their jobs with unequalled determination here in this House. Our desire to see a thorough reform of the employment insurance system is not, therefore, dictated by circumstances, such as a looming election, but is instead a constant. Since the founding of our party it has been our concern 365 days a year.

The employment insurance program is inadequate. We are not the only ones to say so. The OECD, the C.D. Howe Institute, the TD Bank, all of the labour congresses and workers' coalitions, and many others, are unanimous on the need to reform this program of worker protection, particularly in a period of economic crisis.

By beefing up this anemic program, the government would be killing two birds with one stone. First, it would be helping the hundreds of thousands of men and women who lose their jobs and find themselves ineligible for benefits and are therefore forced into the untenable position of having to find a new job in tough economic times. Second, as if the first point were not sufficient, we need to realize that EI benefits constitute one of the best ways to stimulate the economy, twice as much as any tax reductions, of course. Yet all that would be needed to significantly improve the employment insurance program is a mere fraction of the amount the government has distributed as income tax reductions.

I should make it clear from the start that I am absolutely in favour of the principle of this bill, as my opening remarks ought to have made clear. It contains a number of measures that we in the Bloc Québécois have been proposing for some time. I would, however, like to express at least some of the reservations I have about the bill.

Unlike the motion introduced in this House by the NDP on one of their opposition days, this bill does not include any measures to increase the rate of benefits to 60%, but rather maintains it at 55%. For the Bloc Québécois, such an increase is absolutely crucial and that is why we are suggesting that the committee take a closer look specifically at this matter and that the rate be adjusted to 60%.

In addition, concerning subclause 7.1, the bill refers to a relaxing of the eligibility criteria for people who have violated the rules of the EI system. We are in favour of such a measure, but the new criteria appear rather arbitrary. At the very least, clarifications are needed concerning how thresholds are established in the bill.

Apart from those two reservations, as I was saying, we fully support the principle of this bill. I would like to discuss the measures it proposes one by one.

First, setting the minimum eligibility threshold of 360 hours to qualify for regular or special benefits will be particularly beneficial to the workers who are currently unable to exercise their rights, even though they have paid into the system, day after day and week after week. At this time, that threshold varies between 420 and 910 hours. That is much too high, and that is the main reason why so many unemployed workers are excluded from the coverage offered by the system.

These rules penalize seasonal workers in particular, who experience the spring gap that some call a “black hole”, that is, that time of the year when they find themselves with no income, while they wait for their work season to return. The rules also penalize those who hold unstable jobs or work in non-standard employment. Many such workers are women, including single mothers who already have difficulty making ends meet, and who increasingly bear the brunt of these misguided policies.

With the number of hours set at 360, which the Bloc has long called for, an estimated 70% to 80% of unemployed workers could collect benefits, and the level of coverage would be returned to what it was 20 years ago. It has to be said, the most urgent difficulty with the employment insurance system is the coverage it provides to workers. In fact, in 1989, or 20 years ago, the claimant/unemployed ratio, used by everyone except perhaps the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, was 84%. Today, according to the most recent estimates from the chief actuary of the Employment Insurance Commission, it is 46%. What is the reason for such a dramatic drop?

We have no choice but to lay the blame at the feet of the Liberals who, in the 1990s, literally cut off access to the system by making the eligibility criteria so stringent that almost 40% of workers were excluded. In many cases, it was the same Liberals who today denounce the unfairness and express outrage after finally opening their eyes to the reality that they created. But as the saying goes, only a fool does not change his mind. Popular wisdom will now suggest that the fools have been joined by the Conservatives who, on the surface, despite the combined efforts of the opposition parties, do not seem to see the obvious: the employment insurance system is inadequate.

There are so many problems with the system, and that is why the member for Chambly—Borduas introduced Bill C-308, which would make major changes to the system to turn it back into what it is meant to be: a real insurance plan rather than a tax by some other name, as it was under the Liberals, or a way to punish the unemployed, as it is under the Conservative government.

One of the punitive elements in the system is the waiting period, which is absolutely unjustifiable because it is based on the idea that claimants are all potential fraudsters.

I want to make it clear that eliminating the waiting period would not mean paying out two extra weeks. It absolutely does not conflict with adding five weeks to the maximum benefit period. It would just eliminate the very long and very unnecessary two-week delay before people receive their benefits.

Imagine a worker who suddenly loses his or her job—that is not hard to do—and who has to wait 60 days for the claim to be processed—which happens all too often—and who then has to wait another two weeks before collecting his or her first employment insurance cheque.

The statements made this afternoon in oral question period by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development are totally incorrect. It is not true that 82% of contributors to the plan can receive employment insurance. In the latest report on employment insurance coverage, the department's figures were much gloomier. In fact, barely 68% of contributors had access to EI benefits. That is completely unacceptable.

The minister compared the employment insurance system to a private system, which is rather cynical because she reduced the state's role to that of a corporation motivated solely by financial gain.

Following that logic, it would mean that an insurer could decide not to compensate 32% of its clients. Nobody would stand for that kind of attitude. Such a company would be accused of scandal, fraud, theft and mean-spiritedness, and with good reason.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I can also add that all the witnesses we have heard since I have been sitting on that committee—all of them, without exception—have called for EI reform and a complete overhaul of the system, so that it will actually help them, especially in these tough economic times.

In closing, I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois has once again proposed an economic recovery plan. Our plan is costed, realistic and pragmatic. It would fix the holes in the social safety net, restore confidence, stimulate employment and investment, support Quebec and the provinces and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.

I invite all parliamentarians to read it. Unlike others, members of the Bloc Québécois do not hide when it is time to take a stand on ways to get Quebec and Canada through the economic crisis.

Our plan will reassure workers who lose their jobs by providing them with a more accessible and generous employment insurance program, and it will stimulate household spending by enabling workers who have lost their jobs to get the benefits they need to keep the economy going.

I believe that the measures in Bill C-280 will help achieve those same goals, so it is my great pleasure to support this bill.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to put those listening to us in the right context, it would be wise to remind them that we are discussing Bill C-279, which provides that pension benefits, vacation pay and severance payments are not to be included in earnings in order to give people access to employment insurance benefits immediately. This strikes us as totally fair under the circumstances.

What we feel is unfair is the present situation. Like my colleague who spoke before me, I wish to congratulate the member for Welland for bringing this bill before the House, a bill that I feel will result in a little more humanity in our employment insurance program.

It is also a good time to remind hon. members that the Bloc Québécois has intervened in a number of ways over many years in order to correct this program which has, over time, been gradually destroyed by the two parties each in turn. With respect to benefits when there is money owed to the worker after he leaves, the Conservatives are the ones who imposed that limitation on benefits in 1985. From the 1990s on, the Liberals in turn adopted various measures to limit as much as possible any access to EI. This is one such measure.

Fortunately, as we have just heard from our colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, the Liberal Party has rethought its position. That member has brought in some slightly more equitable thinking in order to remedy this situation, which is absolutely unfair to the unemployed. One of the measures in which our colleagues have participated, particularly those in the Liberal Party and the NDP, were discussed at the time of the 2005 examination of employment insurance reform.

Recommendation 23 was focused specifically on correcting that shortcoming. The committee wanted to see the EI regulations not include in calculations of income for benefit purposes any pension income, severance payments or vacation pay. This measure has therefore been in existence since 2005 and two successive governments have not acted on it. I must also indicate, as the preceding speakers have done, that this is only one of the measures that needs to be put in place in order to restore the employment insurance program.

There are currently a number of bills before the House of Commons about this issue. The Bloc introduced four of those bills, and I myself introduced one on behalf of the party. Bill C-308 calls for the following amendments. It would change the qualifying period to 360 hours of work. People would have to work 30 hours per week for a period of 12 weeks to accumulate 360 hours. This measure would eliminate the existing disparity that excludes unemployed workers based on unemployment rates in each region.

The bill would also increase the rate of benefits, which is currently 55%, to 60%. Unemployment organizations, anti-poverty organizations, unions, and even the three opposition parties, if their participation in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is any indication, are unanimous in their support of this initiative.

This bill, Bill C-308, eliminates the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force. That distinction discriminates against women because they are often in unstable jobs and are more likely to be laid off. Also, many women work in so-called atypical part-time jobs. This bill also eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length; the department must prove it. The bill also increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $42,500. That is all in Bill C-308. It is useful to bear these bills in mind.

Then there is Bill C-241, introduced by my Bloc colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, which eliminates the waiting period. I am not the first member to have raised this issue. Tomorrow, in the late afternoon, we will be voting on this bill at second reading. I would urge my colleagues in the House to vote to refer Bill C-241 to committee so that we can eliminate the waiting period, which is yet another measure to prevent as many people as possible from collecting benefits.

Bill C-336, introduced by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, changes the way in which the qualifying period is calculated in the case of a labour dispute. I am thinking about the dispute that took place in Lebel-sur-Quévillon. The employer claimed that it was not a plant closure. He put off closing the plant as long as possible by locking out the employees. When he finally announced that the plant was closing, the employees had been locked out for more than 200 weeks and therefore did not qualify for employment insurance benefits. This is another serious injustice that must be corrected. We will correct it with Bill C-336, another Bloc bill that will soon be studied at second reading.

Bill C-339, introduced by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, extends the maximum period for which special benefits for illness, injury or quarantine may be paid from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

These are the Bloc Québécois bills that are being examined and that are designed to correct what has been done to the employment insurance system in recent years. As a result of the changes that have been made, close to 60% of unemployed people are currently excluded from the employment insurance system.

The employment insurance program is a measure supposed to prevent people from growing poor or even living in misery as they lose their job. However, it is not what is happening right now. In committee, with my colleagues who spoke earlier, we are studying the question of poverty. Different witnesses give us their opinions on this subject.

For example, this morning, we heard the following national and pan-Canadian groups: the group for the abolition of poverty, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Citizens for Public Justice. These are the most important groups. They have a lot of expertise on the state of poverty. And, as far as measures to fight poverty are concerned, employment insurance is at the top on their list.

Poverty exists because there are impoverishment factors, and one of the factors which makes it now more difficult to get out of poverty is the fact that close to 60% of the workers who lose their job are being excluded and are not entitled to EI benefits.

I will conclude by reminding the House that we will vote in favour of Bill C-279 because delaying employment insurance because the employee is still owed some last amounts is simply unfair.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-279.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Concerning your recommendations, you no doubt know that the Bloc Québécois has already taken steps in that direction, by introducing Bill C-269. In any case, there is a general consensus regarding the recommendations made to improve the system.

I brought the bill to the human resources committee for debate...

I remember taking the bill to the human resources committee, where it was introduced and debated, and I remember being stunned and shocked by the response we heard from the government, a response I had also heard in the House of Commons, namely, that changing or improving the system would encourage idleness and laziness. I wanted to share that with you.

Your recommendations are in line with that bill. As you know, we are raising the issue again with Bill C-308.

That being said, will the five weeks added by the government make the system more equitable for women?

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laval.

It is a great pleasure for me to take the floor today in this House because I am particularly concerned by the issue raised by my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain. I believe it is absolutely crucial for those who will be hardest hit by the economic crisis we are currently experiencing, namely the unemployed.

To begin, I want to say that I am completely in favour of this motion, which covers a number of the main themes that the Bloc Québécois has been defending for many years in connection with employment insurance, as well as Bill C-308 which was recently introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas on February 10.

We know that the measures proposed in this motion are not new. Four years ago, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities adopted a report recommending these same measures: elimination of the waiting period; introduction of a qualifying period of 360 hours regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; increase of the salary covered from 55% to 60% based on the best 12 weeks; and introduction of a provision allowing self-employed workers to contribute voluntarily to the employment insurance plan.

We in the Bloc Québécois also believe that these measures would substantially improve the employment insurance system, which for about 15 years now has been but a shadow of what it used to be. This is to be vigorously condemned for as long as this injustice persists.

In the last 20 years, the coverage rate of the employment insurance system has been cut by half. The ratio of recipients to unemployed has fallen from 84% to 46% because the qualifying criteria were substantially and unfairly tightened in the 1990s.

We all know what followed: the government misappropriated staggering surpluses from the employment insurance fund, surpluses whose size was due solely to the tightening of the qualifying criteria. It is high time that the government finally recognized this injustice and did everything in its power to remedy it. This injustice is denounced not only by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, but also by all the unions and all the groups advocating for workers’ rights. This injustice has resulted in the aberration of an employment insurance plan that does not even cover half of the persons unemployed.

The statements made this afternoon in oral question period by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development are totally incorrect. It is not true that 82% of contributors to the plan can receive employment insurance. In the last report on employment insurance coverage, the department’s figures were much gloomier. In fact, barely 64% of contributors had access to EI benefits. That is nothing less than unacceptable.

The minister compared the employment insurance system to a private system, which is rather cynical because she reduced the state's role to that of a corporation motivated solely by financial gain. Following that logic, she is saying that the insurer could decide not to compensate 36% of its clients. Nobody would stand for that kind of attitude. Such a company would be accused of scandal, fraud, theft and mean-spiritedness. And rightly so, I might add.

So why does the government think that it has the right to just ignore the dire straits in which 36% of the people who contribute to the fund and then lose their jobs find themselves? Why? What for? Nothing justifies that kind of attitude, which demonstrates the government's alarming indifference to its social responsibilities.

The Minister of Human Resources' new title is very telling. By replacing “social development” with “skills development”, the Conservatives have made their position clear: no more compassion, no more social safety net. The Conservatives have found the fastest, easiest way to eliminate “social” anything from their list of responsibilities: just take it out of the title. The Bloc Québécois will continue to remind them of their responsibilities in that respect, and they will not soon forget.

And now, back to the motion before us. Exactly five weeks ago, I had an opportunity to talk about a bill introduced by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, who proposed eliminating the waiting period. As I said then, the waiting period is, quite simply, a way to punish the unemployed for losing their jobs. This is a completely unjustifiable policy that merely exacerbates the already unbearable situation in which the unemployed find themselves.

People are waiting longer and longer to receive their employment insurance benefits, often longer than four weeks, and the waiting period adds two long weeks to that time. This is not about extending the employment insurance benefit period by two weeks. This is just about changing the time when benefits start flowing so that people who have lost their jobs are not placed in an unendurable situation for those first two weeks.

According to numbers from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, this measure would cost some $900 million.

Well, $900 million is a far cry from the $57 billion denied workers over the past 20 years. This $900 million would be injected in its entirety into the Canadian economy, as the government itself admits in its evaluation of the economic impact of the measures relating to employment insurance in the recent budget.

In this recession, it is $900 million that would benefit both the unemployed and the businesses where the unemployed would be spending the sums they received.

The other measure in this motion I would like to discuss today is the reduction of the number of hours needed to qualify for employment insurance benefits. At the moment, the number of hours varies between 420 and 910. That is far too much. This is the main reason so many unemployed people do not benefit from coverage under the plan. According to the CSN, some 39% of the workforce works fewer than 35 hours a week. This 39% then is not eligible under the 12 week minimum. With the number of hours set at 360, which the Bloc has long called for, an estimated 70% to 80% of those unemployed could collect benefits, and the level of coverage would be returned to what it was 20 years ago.

Once again, this is a measure that has the support of all the unions and all the groups defending the rights of the unemployed and it was given support on a number of occasions by the committee on human resources and—social or skills—development, according to whether the social mission of the government is to be kept or dropped.

It is perhaps not supported by the former director of the Bank of Canada, whom the member for Huron—Bruce quoted, but I prefer to stick with the opinion expressed by people close to the concerns of the unemployed, who work not only with figures but with people in difficulty.

In conclusion, I would like to express a reservation about this motion, one that the NDP knows well, where Quebec is involved, but does not always include. It concerns respect for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces established under the constitution. If we in the Bloc support the government's investing in the training and re-training of the workforce, it must be done by transferring the amounts involved unconditionally to the Government of Quebec.

These are provincial jurisdictions, as everyone knows, and there is no question of our backing off on this matter or of supporting a measure that would force the Government of Quebec to report to the federal government. I also take this opportunity to strongly criticize the federal government's attempts in this regard in its current negotiations with the Government of Quebec on the transfer of $700 million over six years for workforce training.

Apart from this reservation, I am delighted to support the NDP motion.

Opposition Motion -- Employment Insurance

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. Knowing him, I consider his remarks very sincere. We must question the position of his party, though. I would remind him that it was not the opposition that unseated them, but the public. The public did not vote for them and brought in the Conservatives. That phase will not last long, given the way they operate.

My question is as follows. The Bloc Québécois has tabled two bills, namely Bill C-241, to remove the waiting period, and Bill C-308, to improve the system. Will the Liberals follow the same logic, support these bills and ensure that the Prime Minister does not call for a royal recommendation?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain on proposing this motion this morning.

The debate we are holding today could be called “the dignity or deceit debate”. Allow me to explain. When I refer to dignity, I am talking about the dignity we need to give the unemployed, who did not choose to lose their jobs. When I refer to deceit, I am talking about how, since the early 1990s, the unemployed have been robbed of the tool the government created to support people who lose their jobs: the employment insurance fund.

The employment insurance fund used to be called the unemployment fund. The unemployment insurance program paid benefits to people who lost their jobs. That program was changed and given a new look. We did not want that change. Two successive federal governments changed that concept, in order to use the program in a different way.

As I said, the employment insurance fund is the only tool the unemployed have. Workers and their employers are the only contributors to this fund, which will help workers if they are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. That is why the EI fund is also known as an insurance policy. I will not go on too long about this. I just wanted to remind this House about the nature of this tool.

This tool is structured to cover unforeseen circumstances. The unemployment rate is sometimes very high. Depending on the region, it has sometimes fluctuated between 8% and 9%, and it has reached 18% in some areas. There are even places where it has climbed to over 20%. Every time, the fund has fulfilled its commitments to the unemployed. Today, contributions are $1.73 per $100, but they have been as high as $3.20 per $100. When unemployment was higher, contributions automatically increased. Sometimes, the government came to the rescue for brief periods when contributions were not enough to cover benefits. But each time, the fund paid the government back.

In the mid 1980s, the Auditor General said that it might be a good idea to move the fund to the national budget, so it could be administered along with it. The accounting of it has, however, always been separate in order to meet obligations. The recommendation was made in 1985-86. In 1988 or 1989, the government accepted the recommendation.

Things became complicated when Canada found itself with an exponentially growing debt. When the Conservatives arrived on the scene, I think the Canadian government debt amounted to $93 billion. While the Conservatives were in office, they drove the debt to a little over $500 billion. Shortly before, Mr. Trudeau and his government had also contributed significantly to increasing the country's debt. This lack of concern over controlling the debt gave rise to public pressure, and the government had to do something.

Instead of looking for new sources of funding, however, the government dipped into a source not intended for the purpose. Beginning in the 1990s, the Conservatives began dipping into the fund. Subsequently, the Liberals made substantial use of it to the point that, by 1997, the fund had generated a surplus of $7 billion. Incredible.

And how did the fund generate a surplus of over $7 billion? The Liberals limited the conditions of eligibility so that accessibility to the plan, which was capable of providing benefits to 88% of people who had lost their job, was limited to 40% of the unemployed. According to the human resources department, the figure now is 46%.

This spells disaster for people who lose their job, their family, the regions and the provinces concerned, such as Quebec. The approach is totally disgraceful. The government paid off the debt little by little by appallingly taxing people who lost their job. They were denied a source of income that would provide a living for them, to the tune, today, of $57 billion. This is money taken from the employment insurance fund.

That is unacceptable. I find it hard to understand how the two major national parties are so comfortable with this situation. Not only are they comfortable with it, but they created it, are perpetuating it and continue to defend it. It is a huge swindle.

In legal terms, the Supreme Court ruled on it and said that, technically, the government was entitled to do what it was doing, because it had the power to collect taxes in different ways. This is one approach. Technically, the Supreme Court said it could. Ethically and in terms of its justice, however, should we tolerate this situation and allow it to continue—justice being our first concern—or should we not change tack today and correct the situation?

The deceit continues. Yesterday's vote on Bill C-10 will not correct the situation. With this budget, the two major parties have given the government the green light to keep contributions to employment insurance at their lowest level since 1982. What does that mean. It means that the government is putting a lock on any possibility of improving the employment insurance plan. Things are now twice as difficult.

We listened to our Liberal friends this morning. I am pleased with what they said but I am not pleased about what they did yesterday. It makes us skeptical about their discourse. Are they aware that what they are saying today cannot be taken to its logical conclusion without turning around and authorizing increases in contributions to keep step with needs, especially in an economic downturn such as the one we are experiencing now.

That would be quite in step with the recommendations made by groups concerned. These groups are the employers who also contribute to the fund, and the unemployed or the unions. We have to improve the employment insurance system and improve its accessibility.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in a December 2004 report completed in February 2005, made 28 recommendations, including the measures proposed in this morning's motion. Thus, both governments, the previous Liberal government and then the Conservative government, did not follow through. They found all manner of subterfuges to not follow through. That is also a form of deceit. There is no getting around it. It is a serious economic crime.

Every riding is out an average of $30 million annually. Not only does this impoverish the unemployed, it impoverishes their families, the regions, the provinces and, as I was saying earlier, Quebec. In the end, people contributed to an employment insurance fund in order to have an income if they had the misfortune of losing their job. But they do not get their money because Ottawa is holding it back. Thus, the province has to step in and support these people who do not have an income. At that point, welfare kicks in. The same people pay twice for a service provided by their province even though the latter should not have that responsibility. But it is forced to assume it because the federal government has sloughed it off. And the fiscal imbalance increases even further.

Thus, responsibility rests with the two major parties, as I mentioned earlier.

I will begin the second part of my speech by referring to something which most of our mothers have probably told us. In any case, it is something that my mother often said to me: “My boy, if you are not able to keep your word, if you are not able to honour your signature, if you dishonour your family, then of course you dishonour yourself”. In this Parliament, there are parties that have not honoured their commitments, not kept their word, and not honoured their signature.

I will give two examples. Let us take the Liberal Party. During the election campaign, it made a formal commitment, hand on heart, to help to ensure that this Parliament adopts measures to make employment insurance more accessible and to eliminate the waiting period—a formal commitment. In a joint platform signed by the three opposition parties on December 1, 2008—three months ago—the Liberal Party undertook to ensure that the program for older worker adjustment, POWA, was restored, that the waiting period was eliminated, and that the employment insurance fund would henceforth be used only to assist unemployed persons. This was barely three months ago. The Liberal Party’s vote yesterday on Bill C-10 is flatly contrary to that—three months later. Therefore that party has not kept its word, not honoured its signature.

As a result, the other opposition parties are very much afraid that they will be unable to depend on the word and the signature of the Liberal Party. Under the circumstances, given that this motion expresses an opinion to the government, that it is not binding on the government and does not create any constraints, we are very skeptical that the Liberal Party will again honour to the end its signature and its commitment.

It is very important to continue this debate and to continue to focus on the behaviour of the Liberal Party, to make sure that it understands that the three opposition parties form the majority and that they have a mandate from the population to see to it that the Conservatives do not act as if they were the majority and do not continue to implement their ideological decisions and programs. That should be the framework of the Liberals at this time. We have a responsibility. The mandate the people have given the majority opposition is to keep an eye on the government and ensure that the programs proposed are actually carried out. That is why we were elected.

In December, the coalition’s platform was created on the basis of these programs. The opposition parties looked in their programs for points in common, constituting a platform which would gradually take us out of the economic crisis. The objective was to kick-start the economy, so that in four years we might again have a balanced budget with a deficit of $23 to $27 billion during this period, with a very specific program.

There is something here that does not respect electors' wishes. The Liberals’ behaviour denies us the mandate we have been given. This I stress very strongly—more so than the content of the employment insurance program. For it will determine the way things turn out. If the Liberals are not going to honour their commitment to the end, we will never be able to rectify the employment insurance program. This injustice must be corrected.

This injustice can be corrected, formally, by voting for two bills, among others, which the Bloc Québécois has already introduced. That is why we are pleased that the NDP is joining us on this platform. I refer to Bill C-241 introduced by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, which concerns the elimination of the waiting period and which, incidentally, does not create enormous costs since these are only administrative expenses and there is no addition to the number of weeks.

We must therefore carry this through to the end and vote in favour of Bill C-241, which is presently in second reading. We must also vote in favour of Bill C-308 which it has been my honour to introduce myself, and which covers all the other elements of today’s motion so as to make the employment insurance system more accessible and improve it in a manner that respects the dignity of unemployed Canadians.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Chambly—Borduas talked about Bloc bills relating to employment insurance.

During the last Parliament, we supported bills. I understand the distinction he is making between an opposition motion and a bill. During the last Parliament, I personally supported the Bloc bill to improve employment insurance.

I also intend to support Bill C-308 because it puts pressure on the government to do something now. What I find so deplorable is that the Conservatives will bring up technicalities to prevent this bill from being passed at third reading during the final vote.

I want to assure my Bloc colleague that the most important thing is that the next government, a Liberal government, will table a budget in the House that improves employment insurance. We will deal with the two week waiting period and we will improve employment insurance for people who depend on it when they lose their jobs, which is what is happening because of this economic crisis.

I look forward to the day when we have a Liberal government that will make employment insurance a priority, as my colleague said, and will continue to improve not only the benefits paid, but also access to benefits, which is a critical problem in many regions of the country.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear our Liberal colleagues say that they will vote for this motion. However, I cannot help but feel a little skeptical.

A motion in the House on an opposition day is a motion of intention. It is an invitation. It says “in the opinion of the House”, so it is not binding on the government. It is, however, a very strong message to the government urging it to proceed.

The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-308, which reiterates the motion's objectives almost entirely. Will our Liberal friends support it? This time, will they see this through and ask the Prime Minister to give the royal recommendation, which has been his objection thus far? Will they see it through this time?

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-10 on the Bloc Québécois' behalf.

I feel that I have to briefly review the situation. Last fall, we were given a throne speech and economic statement that were ideological, empty, antisocial, anti-union, anti-women and anti-youth. The Conservatives often question the opposition's usefulness. At the time, had we not created a coalition, we would not have had a budget, and the Prime Minister would be doing whatever he pleased today and would have used the money however he liked.

So we formed a coalition. The Bloc Québécois was one of the only ones to recommend a stimulus package addressing several demands from Quebec to the government. I have to emphasize that because Quebec is important to the Bloc Québécois. There was a lot of pressure. The Conservatives were afraid of losing their limousines and their privileges, so the Prime Minister rushed over to Michaëlle Jean's place to ask for prorogation. That slowed things down considerably, and now they are trying to say that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are preventing this budget from passing, even though the Conservatives themselves are the ones who engineered this situation in the first place.

I want to emphasize, once again, that Quebeckers gave all of the Bloc Québécois members sizeable majorities in their ridings so that we could work for Quebec.

From Quebec's perspective, this budget will take away a billion dollars this year, and a billion dollars next year because of equalization. That is $2 billion. That is a lot of money to Quebec. That money would have been spent on health and education, and we all know how important having an educated and healthy population is to a province, to a nation. A healthy, educated population is an important factor in economic development.

When investors are figuring out where to invest, they look for places with educated people and good health systems. To them, those are indicators that they should invest in Quebec. The Canadian divisions of GM, Ford and Chrysler have always said that health and education systems are among their primary criteria when investing.

I have no doubt that the Bloc will continue to fight hard for justice in terms of the fiscal imbalance. For years, we have been asking for the money Quebec is entitled to, and we will continue to do so. Unfortunately, this year's budget includes some serious cuts.

Giving $170 million to Canada's manufacturing and forestry industries is a joke. That barely represents 22% for Quebec. It is nothing in terms of a major economic investment. These industries are in crisis and need financial assistance more than ever. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is refusing to give them the help they need in order to develop.

We are seeing layoffs in Quebec at Pratt & Whitney, Bombardier, Kenworth and Prévost Car. We are also seeing the attitude of this Conservative government and the Liberals who are supporting this budget. Who got the contracts for the latest military trucks? An American company. Six to eight hundred jobs could have been saved in Quebec and Canada at other truck manufacturing plants, yet they refused to award the contracts to Canadian workers. Military buses could have been built by Prévost Car, Nova Bus or New Flyer, in Winnipeg. These companies could have made the buses, but the contract was awarded to a German company. The contracts for new rescue planes will be awarded to American companies, but that significant economic boost should have been given to Quebec. As usual, we got nothing but crumbs.

The Bloc is always accused of asking questions. They are good questions. It is an intelligent way of demanding things for Quebec instead of being content to blather on about newspapers or laughing from the other side of the House about the work the Bloc has been doing for many years. That is why we are re-elected in election after election.

The same is true in the parts sector. Every riding in Quebec has seen major layoffs, including the ridings in which Conservative members were elected. They are not concerned about it, though, because they only care about their own interests. But there have been major layoffs in that sector. The Bloc Québécois has been making serious demands from this side of the House, and clearly, we will continue to do so.

The aerospace industry is one of the motors of Quebec's industrial sector in terms of economic development. It is being gradually shut down by the lack of proper support. Immediate investments must be made in this sector in order to ensure the industry's future in Quebec over the next 15 years. The current government is doing nothing to help it.

As for employment insurance, tens of thousands of workers have been laid off and they need to receive money right away, without the two week waiting period. Over 40% of these workers have access to employment insurance. The Conservative government and the Liberals prefer to add five weeks to the end of the benefits period, although we know that this will affect very few people.

The Bloc Québécois introduced a bill recently, Bill C-308, to improve the employment insurance system. In a crisis situation, the employment insurance fund becomes an important economic tool. We must allow workers to benefit from it, whether through an assistance program for older workers or through work sharing. We would like to extend the latter by more than a year, in order to keep the expertise in the factories and allow employers to have it when work resumes. Unfortunately, it was decided to extend it for only a short time.

A number of factories in Quebec and the Quebec City region have major problems, and they do not have access to work sharing. In the short term, the most recent improvement does nothing to help the workers in that sector.

The new coalition of the Liberals and the Conservatives continues to make its mark by attacking workers. Consider the federal government's position with regard to its own employees. The Conservatives and the Liberals decided to legislate to take away their right to strike and to bargain. More than 100,000 public service workers have already approved a collective agreement in good faith. Others had negotiated a collective agreement with a 2.5% salary increase. The government decided to take money out of their pockets retroactively to stimulate the economy. This government is creating a climate of insecurity in the federal bureaucracy, and workers are neither happy nor satisfied. A private sector employer or multinational would never dare do such a thing, because it would lose important expertise.

I could talk about pay equity, but my colleague spoke at length about it. It is completely unacceptable to attack women in this way. This is being felt in Quebec and all across Canada.

Having made cuts in this area, the government is handing out tax breaks. Many economists are saying that it is a huge mistake to make tax reductions that will do nothing. People are saving much more than they are spending at present. Workers who have lost their jobs need money. The billions of dollars in tax reductions should be invested to save jobs and build an economy.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will keep on fighting for Quebec as it has always done. It is the only party that fights for Quebec in this House. The other members from Quebec, who sit opposite, do not do anything. They support a budget like this one, which hurts Quebec. We will keep on building Quebec.

Employment Insurance Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Lambert for seconding this bill.

This bill is without a doubt extremely important for unemployed workers, since it improves the employment insurance system. The priority remains improving access to the system, since over 55% of unemployed workers are excluded from it at this time. We would therefore like to reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work.

We would also like to increase the benefit period, which is currently 45 weeks. The budget increases that period by five weeks, but we would like that increase to 50 weeks to become permanent. The bill also increases the rate of weekly benefits to 60% of a claimant's revenue.

In addition, we hope to eliminate the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force. Those distinctions are completely discriminatory. We must also eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length, and increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $42,500.

The bill also adds a new part to the act relating to self-employed persons, including them in the employment insurance system.

As I said, it is an extremely important bill. All parties in this House have agreed that access to the employment insurance system and the benefits themselves must be improved. Our bill aims to do just that. I encourage all members to support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)